Re: AW: AW: [PEAR-DEV] [RfC] XML_Serializer

# greg@chiaraquartet.net / 2003-07-29 14:55:12 -0400: > Hi Stephan, > > Stephan Schmidt wrote: > >>Without documentation of how and why this is any better than > >>wddx_serialize_*(), I am -1. > > > >This is NOT better than WDDX, this is something totally different. > >This class is not about data interchange, it's about creating XML files > >from > >PHP data structures. > > Your description above "creating XML files from PHP data structures" > implies that Josh's suggestion on a name is better than XML_Serializer. > If you use "serialize" in the name, all users will associate it with > the serialization that they know, which is serialize and > wddx_serialize_*. If you don't want this association, which you clearly > don't by the capital "NOT" :), then the name makes no sense. You should > call it XML_Data_Generator as Josh suggested, or XML_Data_Manager, since > you are planning to add an unserialize. If you have the subclasses that > you mention, people will understand what they do in the context of > managing data. To imply that XML is not about data interchange doesn't > make sense, that is its sole purpose. The truth is that the name Stephan chose is as correct as it can get. I don't see any misleading potential in the name, even when thinking of serialize() and the wddx_* functions. serialize() marshalls PHP data into it's own format, wddx_serialize() into the WDDX doctype, Stephan's class into into another (or even any) XML doctype. In fact, I would like to see this class in, or published in some other way, because that would alleviate me of having to write one for my DOM implementation written in PHP. -- If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html