> I'm currently writing "The PEAR Manifest", a document that clearly
> defines PEAR once and for all. I'll post the first draft on pear-dev
> here when it's done, but to answer your question, there has been talk
> about a "core" set of packages for a while. In the manifest these are
> called PFC
> * Manuel Lemos wrote:
>> I think that the greatest point of the merger is to have one and only
>> one abstraction layer in PEAR,
>
> I think consensus was that there shouldn't be "the one and
> only XYZ" PEAR class but "more than one XYZ" PEAR class (like
> IT[X] and the PEAR rewrite of PHPLib'
>> I will first focus on the functional aspects, then step by step making
>> the necessary changes to make that final code compliant to the PEAR
>> coding standard.
> This makes no sense for PEAR.
>
> I propose this way:
> 1. pearize Metabase (functionNames, using PEAR_Error)
> 2. commit the stuf
