Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64615
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sebastian.krebs.berlin@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CANVTSm7d_SY=hEohBjw5VVRraJGJ6jSKih3gDZq5uT2S0_=YyQ@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>
	<CANVTSm7d_SY=hEohBjw5VVRraJGJ6jSKih3gDZq5uT2S0_=YyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 00:11:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CALtuQzDQP_+NHLKEbX9iOi6L4pbtW4xTJLutH=ibkHUDSR7Z6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a002554e8604d2a6d577
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Reflection annotations reader
From: krebs.seb@gmail.com (Sebastian Krebs)

--089e0141a002554e8604d2a6d577
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2013/1/6 Yahav Gindi Bar <g.b.yahav@gmail.com>

> 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.
>

As a suggestion, that should cover most (all?) cases: The identifier could
be defined as "between @ and the first non-alphanumeric character" (it
should probably allow some special like "/", or "\" to allow namespace-like
annotations). @Route("/") would be array( 'Route' => '("/")'. Now a
secondary parser only needs to take care about ("/"), but for example it
can already directly test, whether or not the annotation exists.


>
> 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.
>

To throw that in: Multiline-annotations must be taken into account too :)


Regards,
Sebastian


>
> What do you think?
>



-- 
github.com/KingCrunch

--089e0141a002554e8604d2a6d577--