Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38766
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain strojny.net designates 78.46.69.2 as permitted sender)
To: Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?= <johannes@php.net>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>,
  php-dev List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <1215172604.32294.34.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
References: <1215076043.7021.10.camel@localhost>
	 <alpine.DEB.0.98.0807041013280.6963@kossu.ez.no>
	 <1215160135.8875.14.camel@localhost>
	 <1215162928.32294.5.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
	 <1215163596.8875.22.camel@localhost>
	 <1215172604.32294.34.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:31:44 +0200
Message-ID: <1215174704.8875.32.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=_milch.schokokeks.org-6404-1215174705-0001-2"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Namespaces for internal classes
From: lars@strojny.net (Lars Strojny)

--=_milch.schokokeks.org-6404-1215174705-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Johannes,

Am Freitag, den 04.07.2008, 13:56 +0200 schrieb Johannes Schl=C3=BCter:
[...]
> Depends ;-)
> Main point: There's no such thing as "no BC break". So we have to decide
> whether that BC break (hoping it's the only one) is less a problem than
> having an inconsistent naming scheme. (... wait - isn't PHP famous for
> being inconsistent?) The question there is: Where do we want to go
> tomorrow? Do we want to namespace internal stuff? All of it? Or do we
> still want to own the global namespace and put internal classes there?
> As long as that isn't decided it's hard to make a decision about
> aliasing.
>=20
> So I'd say we need the RFC which defines rules for future stuff
> (All/"non-core" parts/nothing in namespaces) and then the consequences
> for existing stuff.

Alright, that's what my RFC was aiming for. Maybe from the wrong
direction. I wanted to do it exemplary for SPL and go on further for all
the other extensions we bundle in core. Namespacing everything is the
only way to reliably avoid collisions as the other option would be to
prefix anything except core. But what if we move an extension out of
core, should it be prefixed than?

cu, Lars

--=_milch.schokokeks.org-6404-1215174705-0001-2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
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=WIxY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_milch.schokokeks.org-6404-1215174705-0001-2--