On Wed, 05 Dec 2001, Daniel Lorch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's nice having an out-of-the-box solution - everything just works
> fine, just load the module (i.e. uncomment # in php.ini). Nevertheless,
> who actually decides how a module's interface is designed? I know,
> there are some guidelines, but this still ressembles too much to
> anarchy in my eyes. What belongs into PEAR and what has to be done as
> module? IMHO, a programming language gives the user essential basic
> abilities, such as creating sockets, file system access, of course
> providing a syntax, memory mangement etc.. and then it's up to the
> PHP developer to create additional modules. This will provide better
> transparency to the end-developer as he will be able to look at the
> PEAR-sourcecodes and actually /understand/ what is being done. Why
> does every PHP developer has to know C only to understand how such
> modules work?
>
> Too many modules were developed lately. Why not add a daniel-module
> which only serves my needs, but goes into the main CVS tree?
>
> Correct me, if I'm wrong. Your opinions please :)
You are correct. Please revisit the archives of the now defunct
php-template mailing list and read through all the flamewars that went
on there. At the end we agreed that no default template solution would
be bundled with PHP.
-Andrei
Politics is for the moment, an equation is for eternity.
-- Albert Einstein
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
