Package home | Report new bug | New search | Development Roadmap Status: Open | Feedback | All | Closed Since Version 1.0.0

Request #16730 Spin off Log related code in System_Daemon
Submitted: 2009-10-23 17:53 UTC
From: till Assigned: kvz
Status: Closed Package: System_Daemon (version 0.9.2)
PHP Version: 5.2.5 OS: n/a
Roadmaps: (Not assigned)    
Subscription  


 [2009-10-23 17:53 UTC] till (Till Klampaeckel)
Description: ------------ IMHO, the System_Daemon::log() function and all related methods and constants, should be pushed into a System_Daemon_Log class. Of course there's nothing particulary "wrong" with this code, but I feel like the System_Daemon class itself is too monolithic. It does too many things at the same time, in order to work with that, I'd suggest you spin off the log code into System_Daemon_Log. :-)

Comments

 [2009-10-23 18:12 UTC] kvz (Kevin van Zonneveld)
Agreed. I've actually been thinking of doing a complete rewrite of System_Daemon, I've learned a trick or two since I made this code. Aim is to keep the API the same, but revamp all other code. My guess is it can be done in 30% of the lines. Now to find me some time... ; )
 [2009-10-23 18:12 UTC] kvz (Kevin van Zonneveld)
-Status: Open +Status: Feedback
 [2009-10-23 18:37 UTC] till (Till Klampaeckel)
Heh, I wasn't calling for so drastic measures. ;-) I mean, since you are pre-1.0, you can technically break the API as well.
 [2009-10-23 18:41 UTC] kvz (Kevin van Zonneveld)
yeah i know, but i don't think (hope) i need to : )
 [2010-02-24 08:23 UTC] kvz (Kevin van Zonneveld)
-Status: Feedback +Status: Closed -Assigned To: +Assigned To: kvz
This bug has been fixed in SVN. If this was a documentation problem, the fix will appear on pear.php.net by the end of next Sunday (CET). If this was a problem with the pear.php.net website, the change should be live shortly. Otherwise, the fix will appear in the package's next release. Thank you for the report and for helping us make PEAR better. Did some refactoring. Not finished; ongoing process really. But I don't think this req needs to be open for that. If you disagree feel free to re-open.