Re: PHP 5.4 - Meta attribute (aka. Annotations) supportdiscussion

Ah, thanks. This is my proposed syntax and examples of it being used: https://gist.github.com/702925 Here is my answer to those questions: - PHP code - See the gist for syntax - Return object instances of the annotation because then you can call methods on the annotation if you need to (it think it would be useful) - Can you APC cache ones that exist at compile time and then not cache ones that are created at runtime (since they are likely to change anyways, request to request)? - Method argument order to maintain consistency with PHP syntax. Named arguments if PHP ever gets 'em. The grammar addition should use the grammar already there in the grammar file for calling methods so that it always works with the new way of calling methods and functions. - Yes for inherited metadata as long as you can filter it out (exactly like in the RFC). A another comment: getAnnotation($name) and getAnnotation($name, $type) both have to become getAnnotations and then always return an array. This makes things more consistent and allows for multiple metadata structures for each method. The gist I posted would be a fully working API (albeit very basic with no proper error/exception handling) if the url parsing code was put in, but I left it out for brevity. Opinions? -Alec On 11/16/2010 9:39 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Alec, Here is the quick list: - Where to put the metadata information? docblock or though php code? - Syntax (based on first decision) - Return would be an array or object instances - Compile time or run time (decision is more about APC being able to cache, but instances being created at runtime automatically or no APC cache but instances only being created when requested (during Reflection call) - Named variables for instantiation or method arguments order? How would we deal with the need of Reflector during constructor if second sounds better? - Would we support inherited metadata? Cheers, On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Alec Gorge<alecgorge@gmail.com> wrote:

In my opinion (as a person with 0 karma), I think that sounds reasonable because most people are most concerned about the actual implementation (syntax, performance, apc etc) because I don't think many argue that Metadata doesn't have value. What are the 5 different discussion topics you are thinking of, just out of curiosity? Also, I can just post my syntax idea as a gist or pastie or something instead of making an rfc... -Alec On 11/16/2010 9:29 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Stas, Ok, so you think I should just consider everyone want some sort of meta attribute support and start discussing the topics? Should I separate it in different threads or put it all here? The subject is big and I identify at least 5 different discussions that can diverge. Cheers, On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Stas Malyshev<smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:

Hi!

I'm able to write 10 RFC's, but none will care until we reach this list with a patch.

Not entirely true. Patch helps, but with feature this big and complex having consensus on design before actually implementing it may be better and save you some time. As for polls, I think generic "having annotations" poll is not very useful. It's like having a poll "should we have cool features in PHP?" Of course we should! The devil is in the details. And so far the details of this thing contain a significant number of devils we have to handle. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227