Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:49733
Return-Path: <weierophinney@php.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 65008 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2010 20:51:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 16 Sep 2010 20:51:06 -0000
X-Host-Fingerprint: 65.19.76.48 unknown  
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:05 -0400
Received: from [65.19.76.48] ([65.19.76.48:3048] helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 64/90-15036-933829C4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:05 -0400
Message-ID: <64.90.15036.933829C4@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <AANLkTimuWDV=9AA63_9M6cQSp9riCPE214sUNdoV3tQn@mail.gmail.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>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1009161454590.24012@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
 <op.vi4pwzpsidpuyk@cataphract-old.dulce.lo.geleia.net>
 <AANLkTimwXKohy_ai1+ZWsUghkwgzcL=kT8dBi25oGcrZ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C926574.8030805@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTim7DWrTQ6D_SaJMrc5KqN8yYBAy+YKoOdnH1aFO@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C926E03.1030109@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTimEcDtpkKk-6dTnss7J3eCdq+H1E2hfSV+Vexw9@mail.gmail.com>
 <4C92790C.4070405@sugarcrm.com>
 <AANLkTim+c_TnENApwSnDPQJsr_GNo716-to9jHz4r5t2@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-16 (Linux)
X-Posted-By: 65.19.76.48
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Annotations RFC + Patch
From: weierophinney@php.net (Matthew Weier O'Phinney)

On 2010-09-16, Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> > > Again, you change the meanings of something I write.
> > > I do not want Java Annotations on PHP. But I want a clean way to
> > > include metadata mapping on my class/property/method/function.
> >
> > Everybody wants a clean way to include metadata. It's *what* this way is
> > where the difference is. So is the vote about having any metadata retrieval
> > mechanism? Specific proposal exactly as proposed? Some generalization of the
> > proposal without specifying some details?
>
> The RFC contains all details of proposal.
> If the syntax is not ok, then let's discuss the implementation once it
> gets accepts or forget about it if not. But overall functionality is
> described there.

I think the functionality of annotations needs to be proposed separately from
the syntax of annotations. Right now, the RFC is tying the two together -- I
think it's much more likely that you'll get buy-in for annotations if we can
focus on their purpose within the language first. From there, work on
determining whether it requires language level enhancements, and what those may
be -- the syntax and functionality as expressed in the patch, or another
possibility entirely.

I know _I_, for one, am not comfortable voting on the current RFC due to
questions on the approach -- though I _am_ generally in favor of the idea of
annotations.

(I'm still not entirely convinced that the same goals could not be achieved via
code written on top of a docblock parser extension.)

-- 
Matthew Weier O'Phinney
Project Lead            | matthew@zend.com
Zend Framework          | http://framework.zend.com/
PGP key: http://framework.zend.com/zf-matthew-pgp-key.asc