hi all, below:
> > I hope your new release will work on w2k/IIS.... PEAR does without any
> > problems.
>
> You'd better tell that to Alex Black and BinaryCloud people. I'm sure he
> will not deny further assistance.
Ok after reading and responding to the above... this mystifies me. Metabase
of course works everywhere. binarycloud works everywhere but I don't think
that was the point of your message, Steen....
could someone enlighten me so I can respond in context? :)
anyway... stuff below:
> > Steen
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:mlemos@xxxxxxx]
> > 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.
Disagree. If it's something a lot of people will use in an abstraction
layer, add it. Especially if the additions come with no overhead.
Something weird like what we added to metabase (stream encryption of
database I/O) is obviously an example of something that _should_not_ be
included in the base.
fetchOne is a perfect example of something that _should_ be included.
> > > > 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.
Yep.
> > > library should be fairly small, especially when it's a base class .
Take
In theory I agree with that. But I don't agree with the above.
> > > class library. That's okay for many developers, so they will likely be
> > > very happy with your work. But I, for one, am not.
Could you provide some specific examples? I am not what you would call a
traditional student of OO, but obviously as the designer of a fairly
sophisticated OO system like binarycloud, I am interested to hear anything
and anything so I may improve my designs.
> > 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.
Actually, the looking I have done at PEAR has shown it to be, all in all,
very well done.
I think any of PEAR's former problems stemmed from its "lack of definition"
i.e. "mission" but as that problem has been 100% solved I think PEAR is some
of the best code out there and will continue to be. binarycloud uses the
PEAR error handling code and we like it. Though like everyone else, we would
change little bits here and there. None of the PEAR code I have seen is
bloated or stupid (as so much it) - it's all pretty clean, well thought out
stuff.
Thanks for the vote, though :)
best,
_alex
binarycloud project leader
http://binarycloud.tigris.org
--
PEAR General Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
|
