Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123172
Message-ID: <512bd0ff-4428-4028-8c59-7fb3f8f01621@scriptfusion.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:16:48 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PDO subclass names
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <6923C7CF-9168-433C-B2B3-9069F1A766B8@sakiot.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <6923C7CF-9168-433C-B2B3-9069F1A766B8@sakiot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: bilge@scriptfusion.com (Bilge)

On 21/04/2024 14:00, Saki Takamachi wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> Recently I've been working on an RFC regarding object support for BCMath. While working on that, I learned of the following RFC:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions
>
> If we follow this RFC, is it reasonable to place subclasses of PDO under the namespace "PDO”?
>
> e.g.
> ```
> PdoMysql => PDO\Mysql
> PdoPgsql => PDO\Pgsql
> PdoSqlite => PDO\Sqlite
> PdoOdbc => PDO\Odbc
> PdoDblib => PDO\Dblib
> PdoFirebird => PDO\Firebird
> ```
>
> We'll probably get a BC Break if try to fix this after 8.4 is released, so before it's released is last chance to fix this safely.
>
> If Tim's RFC under discussion is passed, the namespace will be "Pdo" instead of "PDO”.
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/class-naming-acronyms
>
> I would appreciate hearing your opinions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saki

Hi Saki,

Consider that adding a namespace does not/should not change the class 
name. That is, `MyClass` once namespaced becomes `MyNamespace\MyClass`. 
Ergo, `PdoMysql` becomes `Pdo\PdoMysql`. The class name should still 
make sense and be a "strong name" (without conflict) once imported.

To state it more concretely, I believe it is normal and correct to 
include 1-3 namespace components within the class name itself, in order 
to create such a "strong name". As a more concrete example of this, 
consider `HttpClient`, `FtpClient` and `SoapClient`. Far too often, we 
see user libraries (incorrectly) namespace these as `Http\Client`, 
`Ftp\Client` and `Soap\Client` (or similar) where the leaf name just 
becomes `Client`. "Client", by itself is a meaningless moniker, but that 
is all we see once the name is imported, notwithstanding importing 
multiple of these clients in one file causes conflicts that now need to 
be resolved with local aliases. In general, I believe aliasing to be an 
anti-pattern that points to a failure to create strong names and thus 
should be avoided by including some of the namespace portion in the 
class name to make the class name more meaningful. Once imported, we do 
not see the namespace portion within the body of the file any more; 
`HttpClient` and `FtpClient` make much more sense by themselves, whether 
or not they would otherwise conflict.

Kind regards,
Bilge