Ulf Wendel wrote:
> Sorry, I really can't stand these questions any more. Maybe I'm asking
> the wrong person and there have been some few persons commiting to the
> phplib in the past but the question remains: where is the community ?!
I know that you don't mean me, Ulf, but I'm currently spending about 6-12
hours / day on Open Source Software projects, like the PEAR/Cache for
instance, or phpOpenTracker, just to give an example.
But I'm growing weary with that. There are so many people that use PEAR or
phpOpenTracker, and what do they do? The majority complains: Can't you do it
that way? Sure, I could, but I don't have the time.
Some people really miss the point of Open Source, they just demand, but
don't want to help out.
Yes, I think that PEAR has its flaws, but we need to overcome those, god
damn it!
There were some offers in the past of people who wanted to work on the
PEAR infrastructure, a clone of the CPAN website architecture for PEAR etc.
Where is that stuff? Sorry to bug you, Sterling and Jannis, but you said
you're working on this project, so people like me and Ulf, who were willing
at that time to build such a thing, stepped away from this project and
focused on other issues. How much progress have you made?
As far as PEAR/DB is concerned: I saw the following benchmark recently
Christian Stocker wrote in phplib-user:
> i just made a quick test with the new Cache-Classes in pear.
> the results are by far not scientific. just used ab from apache on the
> local machine, but it should give some figures:
>
> here's the result
>
> [pages/s] zend bware wo
>
> file 222 72 66
> phplib 162 52 49
> peardb 126 28 26
> wo/Cache 12 10 10
>
> file: the cached pages were stored on the file system
> phplib: the cached pages were stored in a mysql db using phplib
> peardb: the cached pages were stored in a mysql db using pear::db
> wo/Cache: the pages were generated each time with xml/xslt
>
> zend: zend-cache v 1.0.0
> bware: Bware Cache v0.7
> wo: without any Cache-Mechanism (php 4.0.4pl1)
>
> the machine itself was a 733 Mhz Pentium with 128 MB Ram and
> SuSE Linux 7.0 with kernel 2.4.1.
> the file i requested was always the same with a size of about 7kb.
This shows what I feared for a long time: PEAR/DB is slower that PHPLIB's
DB_Sql system.
The question is: Is it slow by design, which'd be a pity since I like it,
or is just the implementation slow? It'd be really great if someone could
have a look at improving the speed of PEAR/DB. This has not be Stig, who is
currently very busy. This would be an issue where some of the people from
the PHPLIB mailing lists could step in: go through the sources of PEAR/DB
and make suggestions. And, no, by suggestions I don't mean replacing PEAR/DB
with PHPLIB/DB_Sql :-)
Reminds me, the "merging" of PHPLIB into PEAR.
Back when Kristian and I announced that PHPLIB should - from our point of
view - be merged into PEAR, there was only positive feedback. And then,
people went silent and now after about two months of no help offering from
the PHPLIB mailing list people - they're against the merging. What do you
people want?
Yesterday, the following thought formed in my head: Why not take the
classes from PHPLIB that stand for themselves (like Forms, Tree, Menu) and
"merge" them into the appropriate PEAR/ directories and put the PHPLIB
Framework (Auth/User/Perm/Page/...) into PEAR/PHPLIB/ as a bundle of
classes?
I think that'd be good compromise.
And finally: PEOPLE, STOP THE RANTING ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE BETTER, DO
IT! HELP OUT WHERE YOU CAN! OPEN SOURCE IS ABOUT GIVE AND TAKE, SO DON`T
JUST TAKE AND START CONTRIBUTING TO PEAR!
Thanks for baring with me,
Sebastian
--
sebastian bergmann e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
homepage : http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de
make a gift : http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de
measure the usability of your web application -> http://phpOpenTracker.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
