Travis Swicegood (http://pear.php.n
et/user/tswicegood) has commented on the proposal for
PHP::PHP_Callback.
Comment:
I've attempted to stay above the fray here and allow other
members of PEAR
bat this around. In the end, it is the community who makes
the decision as
to whether this package is released in PEAR or whether I
just toss it in my
own PEAR channel and call it a day and since I'm biased to
the former my
opinion shouldn't carry as much weight. That said, I think
there is one
observation that hasn't been made yet.
>From all of the comments against, it seems that they all
have the common
thread of a methodological difference when it comes to
programming. It
seems to askew object-oriented design in favor of the
faster, straight
procedural style of PHP. I am in no way attempting to force
the use of
this in every instance in PEAR. It is code that I have used
quite
extensively in my own programming, and from talking with a
few others it
appears to provide some missing functionality that quite
arguably should be
in the core.
On the note of not using this due to speed reasons: where
speed is a
necessity I would recommend against using PEAR or your own
objects/functions and follow a strictly procedural approach.
There are
cases for both types of use of PHP and that is definitely
one of its
strengths as a language. It doesn't allows you the
flexibility to code in
a style that makes the most sense for the task you're
tackling.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that because one
developer or another
wouldn't specifically use a package due methodological
differences in
coding style (procedural/functional versus object-oriented,
etc.) shouldn't
constitute a reason in and of itself to keep a package out
of PEAR when it
fulfills a very defined purpose within PHP.
Proposal information:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=482
--
Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net
--
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php
|