On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 05:33 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Guys,
> Over the years, there's always been a tendency to think about things
> which are 10 steps ahead. It never worked, and I don't think it would
> work here either.
Well, a program spec (or idea) is certainly not the reality of the final
codebase.
But if we don't think a few steps ahead, (or at least know where it's
going), it's kind of hard to determine the steps to take here and now,
or know where it's really going. I posted a list, and we discovered that
PEAR already has dependancies on some /ext's, and (by implication) that
if this continues in PEAR, eventually many of the minor ext's may need
to be built to run PEAR.... in which case we may want to leave the /ext
directory out of PEAR entirely.
If something is going to be a possibility, it should probably be
considered before we build ourselves into a corner, and implementing it
becomes impossible.
> Whether or not we separate modules *at all* will greatly depend on how
> good an implementation we end up having.
Agreed 100%.
But that implementation, as it happens requires some feedback and
discussion, doesn't it?
> How many of them we end up separating will also depend on that. Let's
> just wait with those discussions until they're somehow connected with
> reality.
Counterpoint to this, of course, is that if we _would_ be doing this
with a PEAR scheme, we'd need to design that into PEAR, preferrably
without having to re-write PEAR from scratch to accomodate this idea. :-)
-Ronabop
--
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]
