Comments for "Services_Digg"

» Submit Your Comment
Comments are only accepted during the "Proposal" phase. This proposal is currently in the "Finished" phase.
» Comments
  • Christian Weiske  [2007-04-20 06:08 UTC]

    - Please put up .phps files of your code
    - You linked the apidocs twice
  • Arnaud Limbourg  [2007-04-21 06:49 UTC]

    It would be great if you could add an example on how to use the class.
  • David Coallier  [2007-04-21 07:15 UTC]

    Actually you can find examples here:

    But I would like to see the source files as well, and I didn't look at the full source yet, but is it PHP4 or only PHP5 ? Might be good to point that out in the proposal :)
  • Joe Stump  [2007-04-22 00:23 UTC]

    - I've linked to .phps files.
    - I linked to apidocs twice because PEPr continues to be broken (for some reason it's "validating" URL's that are empty).
    - Example code on the toolkits homepage as well as the numerous phpt files.
    - Package is PHP 5.1+ as it uses array type hinting.
  • David Coallier  [2007-04-22 01:07 UTC]

    Very nice, I really like this package :) Good job Joe!
  • Mark Wiesemann  [2007-04-22 09:43 UTC]

    - If you really want to use the PHP License, you should use version 3.01, not 3.0. But I would recommend the New BSD License.

    - PHP 5 packages should use PEAR_Exception, not PEAR_Error.
  • Alexey Borzov  [2007-04-22 09:51 UTC]

    The package may not have HTTP_Request as a required dependency since HTTP_Request is not a E_STRICT compatible package, see

    Error handling is invalid too, as Mark pointed out.
  • Mark Wiesemann  [2007-04-23 21:16 UTC]

    Some more comments:
    - BSD license like in Digg.phps and package.xml would be fine
    - I doubt that "PHP versions 4 and 5" (at least in Digg.phps) is correct ;-)
    - package.xml still depends on HTTP_Request
    - please remember that version 0.0.2 is not valid for the first release (needs to be 0.1.0)
  • Joe Stump  [2007-04-23 21:29 UTC]

    1.) I mentioned in my update that this is being reviewed by our legal department. So, while you and I both agree BSD is fine,, Inc.'s legal department might prefer the Apache license or one of the other licenses outlined as accepted by the PEAR Group. They're on notice and it will be rectified before the initial release and will be one of the allowed licenses (at this point, most likely BSD).

    2.) I've removed HTTP_Request from the dependencies (though this is just in our repository for now).

    3.) I'll up it to 0.1.0 when I initially release it. Until then I'm using the < 0.1.0 for iterations caused by the proposal process.