Re: geoipo again

> Btw, what's the status on the merge of your patches? Any progress? my message about the not 1:1 geoipo to geoip api and competitive concerns, was ignored instead of being debated further, so instead i built a custom pecl channel to put it in and began standard distribution from my personal site as its own module, an idea fed to me by multiple people when i was showing them the message thread here. if the debate is back on the table, to recap my concerns were: 1) geoipo's oop is not a 1:1 c to php api extension. geoip is no easier to use than libGeoIP, but geoipo is. merging them would create discontinuity between my oop interface and his function interface purely because i did not just bring the functions to php, i wrapped the functions in a pretty box with a nice brightly coloured bow. i have demonstrated that multiple times in multiple examples here and in the examples included in the code base. 2) oliver feeling this was a project he would have to take over because i was obviously just going to disappear, i could hear him sighing across the internet as he explained how he had to take over some pear class already and at how heavy that burden was. 3) and yeah, the work required to do what you suggest takes away from what i already did and more ** because** i would just be a guy that submitted a patch instead of it being my project. i want a project, i admit it straight out. i want the project. obviously, or i never would have bothered with what i already have done. On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Bob Majdak Jr <bob@opsat.net> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >>> About your extension, as we won't prevent you to include it (there is >>> no policy to prevent duplicated features) >> >> I remember a clear case a few weeks ago where there was a dispute about >> a new GeoIP extension that was easier and OOP, and it got shunted using >> that very reason to keep it out, almost as in an anti-competitive move you >> would expect from large corporations. >> >> *cough* > > We never said you could not but that it is way better to merge the two > as there is zero difference in the core features but the OO addition > and some flexibility. It would have been like forking an extension to > add one function. </cough>. > > What you may call shut down and anti competitive, I call it strong > suggestions and advice. > > Btw, what's the status on the merge of your patches? Any progress? > > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | 9]Ô»Ó'íj > fÞèâÄ7http://www.libgd.org