Re: [Phplib-users] phplib vs. pear

[Michael C. <mdc...@mi...>]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 09:02:13AM -0400, steve grimes wrote:
> I've seen threads in the old list and this list that discuss pear vs.
> phplib, but I'm still not sure _why_ pear didn't want to take the phplib
> classes. I would like to generate a discussion within this list that
> includes differences in database, session/auth, templates, forms and
> other classes.
> 
> It seems to me that in some cases, pear gives me _less_ functionality
> that pear;
> 
> DB - pear DB is slow and doesn't appear to give me any more granularity.
> 
> Session/ Auth - pear Auth uses php sessions rather than a database
> session polynomial and variables.
> 
> I know that there is a strict set of coding standards for contributions
> to pear.  Is there some set of practices inferred within these standards
> that will tend to give more flexibility if pear is used? 

I gave Pear a look before I wrote phpauth.  I personally think that it's
a huge amount of overhead for what it does, plus a lot of learning about
their way of programming.

The bottom line is that in its current state, PHP doesn't have what it
takes to make a CPAN-like system.  The PHP philosophy is too different.
Pear is a poor stand-in for that.

The bottom line is that PHPLIB seemed like the right mix, doesn't
require any funky programming, and has always worked for me (regardless
of the quirks).  The only part I didn't like was the auth class, so I
rewrote it.  Moving to Pear would involve too much pain.

Michael
-- 
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdc...@mi...
http://www.michaelchaney.com/