Re: Contribution for PECL
| From: | Maxx | Date: | Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:29:18 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Contribution for PECL | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-11876@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> > 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.
>
> Well, the idea of a good naming convention is not saying tough luck to
> either package. In pear there is the concept of top-level package names
> and then subsequent sub-classes. Even library authors (in the general C
> sense) will most often prefix the function calls with something relatively
> unique, I don't think it should be different here. tmpl_* is too "common"
A question: wouldn't that be a template_* too common instead of tmpl_*?
The issue is that the module has appeared much time ago and there are many
people (including me) who already use it in their projects. I can't see any
problem with changing the name of the extension, but after function names
are changed I will have to support _two_ packages what doesn't seem to me a
very good thing.
BTW, since there is no any other SpeedTemplate yet (according to Google), I
think that would be a good name for the PECL package. What do you think?
> > 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.
>
> yeah, for my part we took the conversation off-list, I made it clear (in
that
> conversation) that I didn't mean to stop/discourage him (not that I
could).
> Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue, no matter
whether
> they are wrong or not. ;-) I was just interested in his reasoning...
I do realize the topic is very sensitive for everyone, and actually I was
expecting something like that. However, I'm glad we stopped the pointless
holy war and began to discuss something more constructive. =) Peace!
-Maxx