RE: [PEAR-DEV] Contribution for PECL

Wow, I don't understand several things in this thread. 1) Why does he have to find some meaningless prefix? Is this a new rule for all packages? I understand that when we have two packages that compete we must find a solution to the naming clashes this might create. But I say its tough luck for the package that comes second. Because we never know when it does or if it will ever come. 2) He is contributing something to PECL and not to the core of PHP. While Smarty is very cool and fast I can see a lot of reasons not to use it. But that is not the point. Its Ok to ask about the hows and whys of the package, but not in this "there is this package, so I guess you can go home" tone. Anyways thx for your contribution. Once I get done with my current project I will take a look. So far I like what I hear. Regards, Lukas Smith smith@dybnet.de _______________________________ DybNet Internet Solutions GbR Reuchlinstr. 10-11 Gebäude 4 1.OG Raum 6 (4.1.6) 10553 Berlin Germany Tel. : +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax : +49 30 83 22 50 07 www.dybnet.de info@dybnet.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Knowles [mailto:alan@akbkhome.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:16 AM > To: Maxx > Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] Contribution for PECL > > Maxx wrote: > > >>how about maxxtemplate ? -- seems reasonable appropriate.. > >>maxxtemplate_* > >> > >> > > > >Disagree. That's going to be too long for function names, and I don't > think > >it's a good idea to make personal monuments here. > > > actually it was a play on words = as in max = maxspeed... / your name.. > - bit like linus <=> linux :) > otherwise how about just using a letter mtemplate... (looking blindly at > some code that used tmpl_xxx or mtemplate_xxx(), you would instantly > know what one did, the other would be a guess. (is it some kind of > temporary storage?) > > >I'm afraid we will have to call it DummyTemplate. =| At least, in this > case > >noone will ever ask "Why not Smarty?". =) > > > It's not that bad :) > > > > >Anyway, I believe that "tmpl_" prefix is good for template functions. It > is > >short and self-descriptive. > > > my only conerns that template engines are one of the few areas where it > is almost expect to see numerous solutions to the same problem, and > that the only requirement was that the namespaces for each one would not > affect other packages. (most of the PHP ones do that by using classes...) > > - for the end user - if you are running a server with PHPbb, and > postnuke, and they used 2 different templating engines.. - you wouldnt > want to have conflicting functions.... > > > > >-Maxx > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Can you help out? > Need Consulting Services or Know of a Job? > http://www.akbkhome.com > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php