Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49639
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.22 cause and error)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Stas Malyshev" <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <AANLkTimuWDV=9AA63_9M6cQSp9riCPE214sUNdoV3tQn@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C873C0F.1010200@zend.com>
 <AANLkTimdCnW3ABq5QSnBa78H14e2LPBa=Kt2txU0sTD4@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C879613.7090709@zend.com>
 <AANLkTim-dHYyJxX2R3-PBVqqa3sv3+zKYr7zw7QvyngJ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C887D2B.2000605@zend.com> <4C8AC526.7000505@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTikpCGj2zVNQmC1gUWaRSpsQD=qNrETi90wj_No7@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8B6168.30504@mohiva.com>
 <AANLkTinuD_Aga-CbsbSq-23MTyOLPGrBEswTm=JtBY0H@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C8BC81E.8000605@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTinFSqCFUE3P5XvjJPwUGZqYrQR_9VHAXAWSL=rv@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913145703.0d226d90@zend.com>
 <AANLkTi=KCpgNwhq55+f9+60K=y197HTbifaAd7=9qPop@mail.gmail.com>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913172559.0d2277d0@zend.com>
 <op.vizacsuhidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <7.0.1.0.2.20100913183427.0d2277d0@zend.com>
 <op.vizeorx8idpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <4C8E6B6F.4080308@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:47:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?N=FAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=E9dica_?=
 =?iso-8859-15?Q?do_IST?=
Message-ID: <op.vizk9rxvidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C8E6B6F.4080308@sugarcrm.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch
From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes")

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:20:31 +0100, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>  
wrote:

>> The proposed annotations are basically object instances that are  
>> returned when you call getAnnotations. There are no itemized lists of  
>> rules. I
>> don't see how this is complex.
>
> They aren't just object instances, since they also have separate syntax  
> to create them - unlike the syntax to create all other objects. And it  
> wouldn't be a problem if it would be something trivial - like just class  
> name - but we have here whole new syntax complete with nesting, named  
> parameters, validation logic and what not.

I share some of these concerns. But a new feature like this would always  
require new syntax.

The best (in the sense of "most similar to what we have today") syntax I  
can think of is to define annotations exactly the same way was you'd  
define arrays, but replace "array" with the annotation name (plus a  
prefix). I think this looks like PHP:

%JoinTable(
     "name"        => "users_phonenumbers",
     "joinColumns" => array(
         %JoinColumn("name" => "user_id", "referencedColumnName" => "id")
     ),
     "inverseJoinColumns" => array(
         %JoinColumn("name" => "phonenumber_id", "referencedColumnName" =>  
"id", unique => true)
     )
)

The named parameters could be replaced by directly setting the fields  
(basically like the ReflectionAnnotation::__construct already does) and  
marking the constructor final. If validation logic is really necessary, we  
could add a validate() method to ReflectionAnnotation (with an empty  
default implementation) that subclasses could override to provide their  
validation logic.

Off-topic stuff follows:

>> - LSB. Can you explain from the top of your head when when the called
>> scope is reset or not (e.g. with parent::, self::, className::, possibly
>> in non-static contexts) in a function call? I can't.
>
> It's not that hard. Keywords forward, classnames don't.

Fair enough, though I find surprising that "parent" forwards. But you'll  
find that most users don't see LSB as a "scope that is forwarded" but  
instead as some kind of inheritance mechanism. It also exposed the odd  
behavior of keeping subclass copies of static properties in the same  
reference set as the parent by default, which causes confusion.

-- 
Gustavo Lopes