# AW:  Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out there)

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/20361
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/20361
- Started by Matthias Pigulla on 2005-11-25T10:46:57+00:00
- Messages: 1
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #20361 — Matthias Pigulla — 2005-11-25T10:46:57+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/20361#20361

> Or
> a) am I missing something
> b) is it the core developers' opinion that core classes have 
> the right of way?

<kidding>
If things behave like that at least there should be a list of "reserved
class names" just like with other keywords. And of course that list must
not be changed as it is considered practical.
</kidding>

I don't think PEAR has done anything wrong here; it was never disallowed
to have a class named Date. And it's not only a PEAR problem but affects
pretty much everyone out there with more than a few hundred lines of OO
code. If it was a failure of QA, clearly one of the "language core" QA
itself.

Maybe namespaces are a solution, but until there is a good solution for
the basic problem, stop adding classes to the core that way. Often it's
hard enough to find short yet precise class names; and there is also a
set of commonly used or agreed-on class names (just think of the common
patterns). In no case anything done in the core must inflict with or
otherwise touch that set - or forget about that "enterprise ready" stuff
altogether.

-mp.