Re: PEAR Status

"Hagenbuch, Chuck" wrote: > > Quoting Seth Fitzsimmons <seth@egrad2000.com>: > > > Is PEAR ready for primetime use? (In CVS versions anyway - I tried to use > > it in 4.0.0 and found that a couple of keywords have yet to be implemented.) > > I'd really like to use the DB modules as a replacement for phplib (as it's > > part of the base distribution). > > I haven't seen much activity around it recently. Horde (http://horde.org/) is > planning on using the database modules; to that end, I committed some fixes to > php4 cvs that lets the pear stuff run, at least for basic operations. I have a > test script that gets results from a mysql database which works, at least - I > haven't done extensive testing yet. Hi Charles, have you compared the database to the PHPLib database abstractions? Advantages, disadvantages, performance? > Also, there are a few people working on javadoc-like parsers, which PEAR has > (sort-of?) adopted as a coding standard for inline documentation. We're also > busy adapting all the stuff we have in the various Horde code libraries into > PEAR-style classes, complete with inline documentation. Yes, I'm working others are working on javadoc adoptions. I plan to present a first public beta around July the 15th. There other open issues we should work on before PEAR gets "public". Today only few people know that there is a package system and I don't mind that. Do not misunderstand me. I do welcome everybody in this list and I will welcome every idea. But I don't like the idea that Joe Doelittle ports all his code to PEAR introducing tousands of different ways of documentation, installation intructions or error handling attempts. I would like to develop some kind of standards for each of these topics before making PEAR "public": - inline documentation - documentation (API, cookbook, reference, integration into php.net) - error handling - how to I define what belongs to a package - installation of packages - configuration of packages Ulf