Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

On 04/02/15 18:57, Pavel Kouřil wrote: > 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? > 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". So, should I make a separate vote out of this? * http * HTTP * Http * php\http * PHP\HTTP * Php\Http * PHttP The last one was a joke actually, well, lame, I know. Can we rule any of these out definitely? As already mentioned, the case is not as relevant because we don't depend on an autoloader... -- Regards, Mike