Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36661
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <3F.E6.25926.FE73DE74@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:24:43 -0500
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DA010320-E879-42BB-87BE-243CA34CBFE0@benjaminschulz.com>	 <1206719555.6331.39.camel@localhost>  <07.8D.25926.CD81DE74@pb1.pair.com> <1206723693.6331.48.camel@localhost> <DB.A4.25926.9EF2DE74@pb1.pair.com> <069801c890ff$607cf000$4001a8c0@foxbox>
In-Reply-To: <069801c890ff$607cf000$4001a8c0@foxbox>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] phar API
From: auroraeosrose@gmail.com (Elizabeth M Smith)

Hiya Steph,

>> Not add an empty directory - just add a directory and its contents much
>> like the Phar::create would do - an assumption that you want everything
>> in that directory inside with no iterators or magic required.
> 
> Hmm.. and how would you tell the difference between: empty directory
> creation, adding an existing directory plus contents, and whether the
> action is recursive or not? I think this needs a bit more thought.

- empty $phar->addDirectory();
- existing dir $phar->addDirectory('/path/to/directory');

Always recursive, if you don't want recursive I'd assume you're doing
something fancy and need a more powerful API

>> addFile(filename) would just add a file - no thinking required, although
>> if there was an addDirectory you wouldn't really need it.
> 
> I think I'm probably missing something here... (haven't read the entire
> thread, can you tell?) addFile() in many cases would actually involve
> more typing than we do currently via array access...?

Eh, after further review an addDirectory would do it for me

>> I'm just of the opinion that the less I have to write for common actions
>> the better.
> 
> Yes, I'm with you on that part. The main problem is that I don't know if
> Greg would want me or Marcus to add functionality (even aliasing-type
> shortcuts) this week, while we're in alpha. I rather suspect he'd like
> to leave edge-smoothing for 2.1.0 and just get the thing out there and
> tested ASAP, otherwise I'd be implementing everything Greg implemented
> last weekend right now :-)
> 
> We don't actually have missing functionality at this stage... everything
> mentioned here boils down to 'prettification'. So while it can
> definitely go down as 'wishlist' stuff, it's not actually essential.
> 
> - Steph

No one is complaining about functionality.  However I think API issues
are more than "prettification" and "wishlist" - maybe not alpha
important but certainly beta and release - if I'm not going to be doing
fancy manipulation of phars and only want a quick way to create them and
run them (which is true in my case) if the pain of using the extension
outweighs the benefits I won't bother (yes I am lazy)  Although I do
agree it doesn't have to be in the alpha, it can wait until Greg gets
back - I just think a quick and easy way to do something common (create
and populate a new phar quickly) would help push popularity, people are
attracted to "easy" and I know I'd love phar to really succeed ;)

Thanks,
Elizabeth