Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64614
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sKj5wkZ2ieBHdfzJafcBmdRi7FY_Bohg5HSLWQJmjAooA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANVTSm5XE69i=KkZV621+tmwWbSKnsHECN0UsLin7mdBTc+jOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <45FD2112-5469-48A2-8941-92415EC711E1@strojny.net> <CANVTSm5U-co=opgLXfgwhETBDwp-EKhGKzibgEmt=FCzSpX=vA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sKj5wkZ2ieBHdfzJafcBmdRi7FY_Bohg5HSLWQJmjAooA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 00:50:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CANVTSm7d_SY=hEohBjw5VVRraJGJ6jSKih3gDZq5uT2S0_=YyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Strojny <lars@strojny.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb2027634731704d2a68b11
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reflection annotations reader
From: g.b.yahav@gmail.com (Yahav Gindi Bar)

--e89a8fb2027634731704d2a68b11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think that our work is to isolate each annotation so it'll be easy to
>> access, then, it'll be easy enough to write the code that creates "complex
>> annotations", such as constructors and so on, in userland.
>>
>
> In fact, there's probably no need (now) to go on and build a full
> annotation reader that instantiates classes and does fancy stuff as we
> currently do in doctrine/common.
> A fast parser is more than enough I suppose. That's our bottleneck
> (besides scanning files).
>
>
> Marco Pivetta
>
> http://twitter.com/Ocramius
>
> http://ocramius.github.com/
>

So the problem is the syntax which is difference?
When wrote this RFC, I just though about basic cases...

Though I agree with you that the main problem is the syntax.
We can extract the entire doc-comment and only isolate between annotations,
so doc-comment like:
/**
  * @Route("/")
  * @ORM(Key="foo")
  * @var string
 */

Will be : array( 'Route("/")' => "", 'ORM(Key="foo")' => "", "var" =>
"string" )
But the question is it really worth it, since you'll probably need to
create some sort of "sub-parser" that uses this isolated annotations array
and apply on them your syntax.

That's being said, if we'll see performance improvements, I really think
that it's a good solution to start with, since because its not an
Attributes, I don't think that we should dictate the syntax for each
application. Each application will get the doc-comment annotation and will
be able to apply on it its own syntax and fancy stuff... I think that it's
the best solution because of BC too.

What do you think?

--e89a8fb2027634731704d2a68b11--