Re: geoipo again

Bob, We have offered you to submit patches to add OO support and build one global extension that could be used by everyone and bundled with most Linux distributions. You however want to build and control your own stack and refuse to cooperate. Since that seems to be the case, you are free to do whatever you want on the Internet, have your own PEAR channel and control everything on github. That is Open Source. If you change your mind, please let us know and send us patches (ie: contribute). After some contributions, you could be marked as contributor and have access to add the features you want. Please note however that simply replacing one extension by rewriting it is not a patch. As such, Pierre already took some time to explain to you how this could be done by giving you the reference of the Zip extension. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you could stop spreading false messages around. Kind regards, Olivier On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Bob Majdak Jr <bob@opsat.net> wrote: >> 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 | >> http://www.libgd.org > > > -- > PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- http://www.olivierhill.ca/