HI
I hope your new release will work on w2k/IIS.... PEAR does without any
problems.
Steen
-----Original Message-----
From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:mlemos@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 21. april 2002 13:25
To: pear-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PEAR] Some PEAR remarks
Hello,
Vincent Oostindie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:41:21 +0200, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> >> As I said in another post in this thread, I think classes DB and
> >> DB_common are too feature-bloated. Methods like 'fetchOne' and
> >> 'fetchAll' simply shouldn't be there, because they do not add a new
> >> feature to the library; they only combine a couple of existing features
> >> to make using them easier to use. That kind of code shouldn't be in a
> >> library, or at least not at that level.
> >
> > Not in a library? Then where should it be? They certainly are features
> > in a library, because they provide a quick and easy way to do simple
> > queries, which makes programmers more productive.
>
> Aren't you confusing class libraries with procedural libraries? It's
> generally okay to put lots of functions in a procedural library, take the
> C string library for example. On the other hand, a class in a class
> library should be fairly small, especially when it's a base class . Take
> the C++ string class for example: it has much less features than its C
> equivalent. That's not to say the features shouldn't be in the library at
> all, but they should be somewhere else, at a different level, for example
> in a utility class with static only methods, or in a specialized
> subclass.
>
> I really don't want to sound arrogant, but I would still urge you to read
> up on how to design and implement libraries, especially class libraries.
> It is a discipline not comparable to designing applications or procedural
> libraries. It's very, very difficult to do right.
>
> All in all, I think I now have a pretty clear idea of how the PEAR
> library is designed, and I think I have said all I wanted to say about
> it. Your responses have shown that you think different about many things,
> which is of course allright. On the other hand, my viewpoints on the
> subject differ too much from yours, and my conclusion is that I will not
> be using the PEAR library myself. I hate procedural code, and to me the
> PEAR library is just that: a procedural library in the disguise of a
> class library. That's okay for many developers, so they will likely be
> very happy with your work. But I, for one, am not.
>
> Anyway, thank you all very much for your responses and opinions. I hope
> we all learned something from them. At least be sure I did.
Have you looked into BinaryCloud? It is a different beast. It is
something very well planned ahead as opposed to the Ad-hoc contributions
of PEAR.
You may want to take a look at it and your input is certainly well
appreciated there:
http://binarycloud.tigris.org/
Regards,
Manuel Lemos
--
PEAR General Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
|
