Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:113289 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 35306 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2021 13:31:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2021 13:31:25 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784051804E2 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from processus.org (ns366368.ip-94-23-14.eu [94.23.14.201]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 05:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from authenticated-user (PRIMARY_HOSTNAME [PUBLIC_IP]) by processus.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CC83F5101324 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:20:36 +0000 (UTC) To: internals@lists.php.net References: Message-ID: <942f8b96-74f6-20f6-4e04-2c4b92c7e752@processus.org> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:20:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Authentication-Results: processus.org; auth=pass smtp.auth=pierre-php@processus.org smtp.mailfrom=pierre-php@processus.org X-Spamd-Bar: / Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespaced in bundled extensions From: pierre-php@processus.org (Pierre) Le 25/02/2021 à 21:26, Nikita Popov a écrit : > Hi internals, > > The question of namespaces in the stdlib has been coming up a lot recently, > so I'd like to present my own stab at resolving this question: > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions > > Relative to a number of previous (declined) proposals, the main difference > is that I do not propose a top-level "PHP\" vendor namespace, and instead > recommend the use of "ExtName\", in line with existing practice for > extensions. I believe this addresses the primary concern with previous > proposals. > > Regards, > Nikita Hello, Thank you so much for this RFC, this is a big +1 for me. There's only one caveat: wouldn't this create name conflicts with some existing third-party libraries ? Anyway, if it does, it'll conflict with Array, or Password, or OpenSSL named libraries, and in this case, it means they have voluntarily ignored the vendoring convention, which is evil-designed since they would take a common name as root namespaces and prevent legitimate use of those, and they should probably be fixed. -- Pierre