Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20364
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:59:55 +0100
Message-ID: <00A2E2156BEE8446A81C8881AE117F192C1D00@companyweb>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps outthere)
Thread-Index: AcXxrf+iEIm+EuAAQLaz6G7flzqkygAACd2w
To: "PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: AW: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps outthere)
From: mp@webfactory.de ("Matthias Pigulla")

>=20
>      Then I have to ask both of you: why is there no mentioning in
>      the release notes or the upgrading guide regarding "Date"
>      being reserved for PHP now?

I was also curious as to that. Once again the release announcement (more
precisely, the "upgrade" document) greatly understates the impact:

"9b. Class constants in new PHP 5.1 extensions
[...]in order to minimise pollution of the global namespace in PHP.
Note that the new Date class exists at this point purely to allow the
core date extension to adhere to the above convention, although extended
functionality is planned for the the class in the future. "

At least I'd say this is "diplomatic". You need to have a delicate
understanding to even notice it, let alone understand the impact.

And as to "polluting the global namespace" - well, this one is a
supertanker that has just sunk at the shore of OOP.

>      The language/base library might want to reserve certain
>      simple classnames for itself.  That is its right.

Not, not even that when it comes to most obvious names like "Date" (or
Page; User; Form...) or to commonly used ones (like Controller,
Database, DAO, Singleton, Observer...).

>      But: Doing so in a minor release is absolutely bad timing.
>      It gets worde because there apparently has been _no_
>      documentation of the fact at all.  How shall our users
>      prepare themselves appropiately?

Not even in a minor relase, but with the very last RCs. This is a smack
in the face of all who even tried to keep up.

-mp.