Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82385
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54DA30AD.1040704@php.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:24:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGF2ZWwgS291xZlpbA==?= <pajousek@gmail.com>, 
 Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
CC: Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com>, 
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <DDA98D4F-2105-415A-B921-01A622091FA9@php.net>	<54D217E7.8030407@php.net>	<CAB6YZuxfpTMRu_y_VL8gQqXdf+TH+LAap_8B-_EqMBy1epLg_Q@mail.gmail.com>	<54D21BEB.2040704@php.net>	<CAEZPtU6u4jVVu_z4nkPKgTSBB4Njyx0ghiCc=goqr_47EE9ftQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54D2527F.8020809@googlemail.com>	<D1373589-D867-4091-8170-A7798D18DF94@ajf.me> <CAB6YZuw5n8Nw3yzEgn2aAL6MroDCGtjtvANSushxjDrRxjwOuw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB6YZuw5n8Nw3yzEgn2aAL6MroDCGtjtvANSushxjDrRxjwOuw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

On 04/02/15 18:57, Pavel Kouřil wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>> Hey,
>> 
>>> On 4 Feb 2015, at 17:10, Crypto Compress
>>> <cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I would go with Http\
>>> 
>>> Why not the reserved Php\Http\?
>> 
>> This sounds good to me. php\ is already reserved, and it’s similar
>> to the common community convention of vendor\packagename. (e.g.
>> ajf\escapes.) Would work well with Composer and Packagist too, as
>> it could be a virtual php/http package (Packagist naming
>> convention).
>> 
>> Also, I’d like to say I’d prefer php\HTTP or php\http over
>> php\Http. Capitalising an acronym doesn’t feel right to me, perhaps
>> because case is usually significant, Following the Casing Rules
>> Used by Titles. Of php\HTTP and php\http, php\http is probably
>> better since the case matches that of php\. It could also be
>> PHP\HTTP, I guess, but lowercase is somehow more appealing to me.
>> 
>> Thoughts?

> Personally,
> 
> From my userland point of view, I would expect it to follow the same 
> capitalization rules as classes are supposed to follow, making it 
> "Php\Http".


So, should I make a separate vote out of this?

* http
* HTTP
* Http
* php\http
* PHP\HTTP
* Php\Http
* PHttP

The last one was a joke actually, well, lame, I know.
Can we rule any of these out definitely?

As already mentioned, the case is not as relevant because we don't
depend on an autoloader...

-- 
Regards,
Mike