Re: proc_open() resource to opaque object migration

On 28 September 2023 21:19:47 BST, "Máté Kocsis" <kocsismate90@gmail.com> wrote: >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 Yes, lacking evidence that the name is actually being used: Process PHP "owns" the top level namespace. This has been documented for decades, too. cheers Derick