Re: [PEAR-DEV] Re: Reworking XML_SVG to use DOM

On 20/05/2014 9:26 PM, David Leaman wrote:
> Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Normally, the answer to such questions is "ask the maintainer", but
>> since this package is unmaintained, I say that if you take it over, it
>> should be your call.
>>
>> Personally, I approve of such a rewrite. But then again, it's clear
>> that this lack of use of DOM was done for a reason - PHP 4 support. It
>> would probably be best to make a new package, and link to it from
>> XML_SVG as the new recommended way. I like the name "XML_SVG_DOM".
>
> On further consideration, I'm leaning toward keeping the name XML_SVG. There
> don't seem to be any PEAR packages with "DOM" in their names, so I don't
> feel the need to use it here. And rather than creating a new package named
> XML_SVG2 as some packages have, I'd rather fork the source, increment the
> version number from 1.x to 2.x, and make it clear in the docs that 2.x is
> not compatible with PHP4. If development is necessary for PHP4 compatibility
> it can be done on the 1.x branch.
>
>> BTW, if you're willing to break off from PHP 5.2, and into PHP 5.3+,
>> you could also use namespaces and make a new package in PEAR2.
>
> This could be the solution. I'll familiarize myself with the information on
> wiki.php.net and see if that's the way I want to go.
>

Stable 1.x Packages shouldn't break API in a major release. The PEAR CLI 
has no safe way of upgrading code between major versions and anyone 
depending on the latest-stable version (not a good idea, but people do 
it) will have their code break with the new release.

Other packages have released a 2.x version with a new package. I.e. 
HTTP_Request2, Console_Color2, Net_CheckIP2, etc. This is the preferred 
approach.

Cheers,
Mike



> Thanks,
> -David Leaman
>
>