Re: proc_open() resource to opaque object migration

On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 21:20, 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? > If there needs to be a namespace, we could take inspiration from Python and use OS\Process, as everything relating to processes seem to reside in the os module. Best regards, George P. Banyard