Re: Extending Net/

You're right, PHP already had native support for many of the things I mentioned. But PHP already has support for Sybase and MySQL natively, why would I want to use PEAR's DB_mysql? Maybe the answer is, as you say, that there isn't a need for it, it's just overhead. But maybe the *majority* of people are OK with the same assumptions you were forced to make. If so, then isn't that what PEAR is about? I am not really saying "PEAR needs to have foo and bar, or you're all a bunch of losers!" I'm trying to say: Yes, I realize that there is a very good chance that what I'm suggesting is not going to ever happen. But there *may* be a middle ground between "Abstract functionality that makes some questionable assumptions" and "Sorry, you'll have to go 'low level' and use the native PHP calls." On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Chuck Hagenbuch wrote the following to php-pear@lists....: > Quoting Joey Smith <joey@joeysmith.com>: > > > I'm curious as to what the plans are for the "Net" section of PEAR. > > While I realize that many of the things that exist in CPAN's Net section > > are frequently compiled in to PHP, it would be nice to be able to access > > these through the PEAR standard interface. > > I don't really buy the argument. Everything you list (except for telnet, scp, > ssh, which are thorny all by themselves) is already available natively. Why > write a wrapper that just wraps those native calls? It's overhead. I've written > libraries that specifically deal with IMAP folders, for example, but that adds > a lot of specialization, and wraps a _ton_ of work that can't be done just by > the imap_* functions. It's also not something I'd consider appropriate for > PEAR - it's as general as I thought I could sanely make it, but it still makes > assumptions that not everyone may want to make. > > -chuck > > -- > Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org> > Entropy. It's what's for dinner. > >