proc_open() resource to opaque object migration
| From: | Máté Kocsis | Date: | Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:19:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | proc_open() resource to opaque object migration | ||
| Groups: | php.internals | ||
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-121164@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Everyone,
I'm writing in connection with a question coming up lately during the
"resource to opaque object migration" project (
https://github.com/php/php-tasks/issues/6)
which we have been working on
for quite a long while.
During the review of my PR migrating the resource returned by proc_open()
to an object (https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/12098), it quickly became
evident that there was no consensus about the new class name, since the
originally proposed "Process" name has a non-negligible BC break likelihood..
That's why we should find the best class name in accordance with Nikita's
namespace naming convention RFC (
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions).
Even though my
PR currently implements "Standard\Process", this name is not a good
candidate according to the policy:
Because these extensions combine a lot of unrelated or only tangentially
> related functionality, symbols should not be namespaced under the Core,
> Standard or Spl namespaces. Instead, these extensions should be considered
> as a collection of different components, and should be namespaced according
> to these.
Does anyone have a good suggestion?
Thanks,
Máté