Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50286
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain quepasacorp.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4CE34E1B.20001@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik703Bky+ZtjdzBMY8tr97m34jDSSMyoB9opJKR@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE3340F.6090304@sugarcrm.com>
	<87.0F.25421.F4933EC4@pb1.pair.com>
	<4CE339DF.1020605@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTi=fRYk=GFv5LxDQ0_RTbjpuuwth2GYpbjqRNKfP@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE33D54.8000009@sugarcrm.com>
	<AANLkTinPw2CKSrC9HW-E4h7P8Lug46wq4HrNYR+8S8AU@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE33F06.3080507@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=2WMTK3p=gt9L+xQu3JH0zcEcRNC4E2orw-sCr@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CE34E1B.20001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:38:19 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimonQW+__4bswgpNr79TKWv+vA-dRRZx9BoePQ2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alec Gorge <alecgorge@gmail.com>
Cc: "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151748e70c3d476a049539eb5c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) supportdiscussion
From: will.fitch@quepasacorp.com (Will Fitch)

--00151748e70c3d476a049539eb5c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I like the idea, Alec.

My only question is, syntactically, what difference would using a keyword,
in this case "attribute", as opposed to brackets "[]"?

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Alec Gorge <alecgorge@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, thanks.
>
> This is my proposed syntax and examples of it being used:
> https://gist.github.com/702925
>
> Here is my answer to those questions:
>
> - PHP code
> - See the gist for syntax
> - Return object instances of the annotation because then you can call
> methods on the annotation if you need to (it think it would be useful)
> - Can you APC cache ones that exist at compile time and then not cache ones
> that are created at runtime (since they are likely to change anyways,
> request to request)?
> - Method argument order to maintain consistency with PHP syntax. Named
> arguments if PHP ever gets 'em. The grammar addition should use the grammar
> already there in the grammar file for calling methods so that it always
> works with the new way of calling methods and functions.
> - Yes for inherited metadata as long as you can filter it out (exactly like
> in the RFC).
>
> A another comment:
>
> getAnnotation($name) and getAnnotation($name, $type) both have to become
> getAnnotations and then always return an array. This makes things more
> consistent and allows for multiple metadata structures for each method.
>
> The gist I posted would be a fully working API (albeit very basic with no
> proper error/exception handling) if the url parsing code was put in, but I
> left it out for brevity.
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Alec
>
>
>
>
> On 11/16/2010 9:39 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Alec,
>>
>> Here is the quick list:
>> - Where to put the metadata information? docblock or though php code?
>> - Syntax (based on first decision)
>> - Return would be an array or object instances
>> - Compile time or run time (decision is more about APC being able to
>> cache, but instances being created at runtime automatically or no APC
>> cache but instances only being created when requested (during
>> Reflection call)
>> - Named variables for instantiation or method arguments order? How
>> would we deal with the need of Reflector during constructor if second
>> sounds better?
>> - Would we support inherited metadata?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Alec Gorge<alecgorge@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion (as a person with 0 karma), I think that sounds reasonable
>>> because most people are most concerned about the actual implementation
>>> (syntax, performance, apc etc) because I don't think many argue that
>>> Metadata doesn't have value.
>>>
>>> What are the 5 different discussion topics you are thinking of, just out
>>> of
>>> curiosity?
>>>
>>> Also, I can just post my syntax idea as a gist or pastie or something
>>> instead of making an rfc...
>>>
>>> -Alec
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2010 9:29 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stas,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of
>>>> meta attribute support and start discussing the topics?
>>>> Should I separate it in different threads or put it all here?
>>>>
>>>> The subject is big and I identify at least 5 different discussions
>>>> that can diverge.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev<smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm able to write 10 RFC's, but none will care until we reach this
>>>>>> list with a patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not entirely true. Patch helps, but with feature this big and complex
>>>>> having
>>>>> consensus on design before actually implementing it may be better and
>>>>> save
>>>>> you some time.
>>>>> As for polls, I think generic "having annotations" poll is not very
>>>>> useful.
>>>>> It's like having a poll "should we have cool features in PHP?" Of
>>>>> course
>>>>> we
>>>>> should! The devil is in the details. And so far the details of this
>>>>> thing
>>>>> contain a significant number of devils we have to handle.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
>>>>> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
>>>>> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 

Thanks,

Will Fitch
Director of Operations | Quepasa.com
931.205.8242 | will.fitch@quepasacorp.com
Twitter: twitter.com/willfitch

--00151748e70c3d476a049539eb5c--