Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:24752
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: internals@lists.php.net,Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:57:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20060720115718.01947078@pierre-u64>
In-Reply-To: <1184012601.20060720095137@marcus-boerger.de>
References: <20060719173451.114d4528@pierre-u64>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0607200200490.13603@arfg.argcubovn.sv>
	<fe05d1540607191611n70dcd93al63b43bc374d57160@mail.gmail.com>
	<1184012601.20060720095137@marcus-boerger.de>
Reply-To: pierre.php@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Adding pecl/zip to 5.2
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre)

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:51:37 +0200
helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) wrote:

> Hello Pierre,
> 
>   well Jan has a has a very good point here. Just as it was unlikely

Jan?

> that a class called PDO had been implemented a hundred times, it
> didn't cause any namespace clashes. However it is fairly likely that
> some frameworks bring Zip support and have a class named Zip. If not
> then there probably is no mainstream use for a Zip class and
> inclusion to core makes little sense.

No mainstream use? Which other examples do you need? There is hundred
of usages of the zip archives.

>  So for me this falls clearly
> under the terms of our naming scheme (see [7] below) and shows we
> should extend this rule a bit to prevent obvious and very short
> names. 

Again, I have nothing against short names. We have to inform our users
and prepare them.

> Obvious here imo means terms that are likely to be used in a
> frameworks/applications. To me Zip definitively is. Apart from
> renaming i have nothing against moving it to core.
> 
> Just a short note, you accused Derick of sneaking in stuff that was
> more or less decided, well obviously he could have done it early -
> hadn't he done much other work and haven't he been on vacation
> either. So thinking he did is fairly understandable, though i
> personally doubt that. But be it that. Why now do the same bad trick
> again, and that without even having dicussed the technical part of
> inclusion beforehand (like we did for date)?

I still accuse him to sneak things in. He did it twice for the same
thing.

Don't compare apples and oranges. This thread is exactly what has
missed for Date.

Cheers,
--Pierre