Proposal finished Networking:

Le 25 févr. 07 à 10:00, PEPr a écrit :

>
> PEPr has automatically finished the proposal on  
> Networking::Net_URL_Mapper.
>
> Sum of Votes: 6 (2 conditional)
> Result:       This proposal was accepted
>
> Further details on the status of the proposal and the
votes can be  
> found here:
> http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=428



Hi,

Obviously this package didn't drive a lot of interest
although I  
believe it is a very useful addition to any programmer's
toolset.  
Anyway, I consider not enough people voted for it to be
added to  
PEAR. It's probably my mistake since documentation is a bit
scarce at  
the moment.

If I look at the conditional votes, 2 people ask me to
rename it  
Net_URL_Router. So I guess that's only 4 votes in the end,
then this  
package is not accepted. I don't want to rename it Router
actually,  
this package doesn't route your request, unlike Zend stuff
or RoR  
routes, it just maps your pathinfo to a defined set of rules
and  
returns a result. It works a bit like Console_GetArgs, you
define  
rules and the pathinfo is the argument that will be parsed.

So, is it possible to mark it as rejected or to extend the
vote period ?

Thanks in advance,


--
Bertrand Mansion
Mamasam
Work : http://www.mamasam.com
Blog : http://golgote.freeflux.n
et

--
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

Bertrand Mansion wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Obviously this package didn't drive a lot of interest
although I believe 
> it is a very useful addition to any programmer's
toolset. Anyway, I 
> consider not enough people voted for it to be added to
PEAR. It's 
> probably my mistake since documentation is a bit scarce
at the moment.
> 
> If I look at the conditional votes, 2 people ask me to
rename it 
> Net_URL_Router. So I guess that's only 4 votes in the
end, then this 
> package is not accepted. I don't want to rename it
Router actually, this 
> package doesn't route your request, unlike Zend stuff
or RoR routes, it 
> just maps your pathinfo to a defined set of rules and
returns a result. 
> It works a bit like Console_GetArgs, you define rules
and the pathinfo 
> is the argument that will be parsed.

The name is fine and describes what the package does. I
think there 
might be a lack of visibility of proposals currently put to
voting, they 
lack visibility. Maybe they should be shown somewhere on the
main page 
of pearweb ?

> So, is it possible to mark it as rejected or to extend
the vote period ?

I'm not sure PePr allows that. The easiest could be to do
another proposal ?

> Thanks in advance,


Arnaud.

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

I was thinking about voting for this but didn't because I
saw that it passed 
anyway ;)

> 
> Obviously this package didn't drive a lot of interest
although I believe 
> it is a very useful addition to any programmer's
toolset. Anyway, I 
> consider not enough people voted for it to be added to
PEAR. It's 
> probably my mistake since documentation is a bit scarce
at the moment.
> 
> If I look at the conditional votes, 2 people ask me to
rename it 
> Net_URL_Router. So I guess that's only 4 votes in the
end, then this 
> package is not accepted. I don't want to rename it
Router actually, this 
> package doesn't route your request, unlike Zend stuff
or RoR routes, it 
> just maps your pathinfo to a defined set of rules and
returns a result. 
> It works a bit like Console_GetArgs, you define rules
and the pathinfo 
> is the argument that will be parsed.
> 
> So, is it possible to mark it as rejected or to extend
the vote period ?
> 

--
David Sanders

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

On 3/1/07, Bertrand Mansion <golgotemamasam.com> wrote:
>
> Le 25 févr. 07 à 10:00, PEPr a écrit :
>
> >
> > PEPr has automatically finished the proposal on
> > Networking::Net_URL_Mapper.
> >
> > Sum of Votes: 6 (2 conditional)
> > Result:       This proposal was accepted
> >
> > Further details on the status of the proposal and
the votes can be
> > found here:
> > http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=428

>
>
> Hi,
>
> Obviously this package didn't drive a lot of interest
although I
> believe it is a very useful addition to any
programmer's toolset.
> Anyway, I consider not enough people voted for it to be
added to
> PEAR. It's probably my mistake since documentation is a
bit scarce at
> the moment.

Not that anyone cares about what I think , but I
feel like this
would make a great addition. If people didn't like the name,
they
should not have voted +1 on it? But they did, so I guess it
passed.

The reason why some proposed renaming the package is because
of how
things are already "called" in other (MVC)
frameworks.
Take the Zend Framework as an example, it's referenced with
Zend_Controller_Front::getRouter and the like. So people
would
probably search PEAR for "router" instead of
"mapper". By the way,
Rails does the same. I *think* Symfony is also following
this model.

What's your concern with renaming it?

Cheers,
Till

--
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php