Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > Hey, > >> On 4 Feb 2015, at 17:10, Crypto Compress <cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would go with Http\ >> >> Why not the reserved Php\Http\? > > This sounds good to me. php\ is already reserved, and it’s similar to the common community > convention of vendor\packagename. (e.g. ajf\escapes.) Would work well with Composer and Packagist > too, as it could be a virtual php/http package (Packagist naming convention). > > Also, I’d like to say I’d prefer php\HTTP or php\http over php\Http. Capitalising an > acronym doesn’t feel right to me, perhaps because case is usually significant, Following the > Casing Rules Used by Titles. Of php\HTTP and php\http, php\http is probably better since the case > matches that of php\. It could also be PHP\HTTP, I guess, but lowercase is somehow more appealing to > me. > > Thoughts? > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > Personally, From my userland point of view, I would expect it to follow the same capitalization rules as classes are supposed to follow, making it "Php\Http". Regards Pavel Kouril