Re: Re: [RfC] XML_Beautifier

On 20 Sep 2003 at 10:45, Martin Jansen wrote: > On Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 10:3641AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2003 at 10:32, Martin Jansen wrote: > > > > > On Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 10:2231AM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > > I guess apiVersion 2.0 will be our Foo2 soon, right? > > > > > > I did not catch up with the recent discussion on versioning/BC > > > stuff, but if you guys are planning to rename a package when > > > releasing a new major version, that's a bad thing and I'm strongly > > > against that. > > > > Hmm, then you missed a lot of good points for this renaming also > > :-)) Maybe have a look at the archives. One main reason for me > > renaming the packages and classes is that this is the only way you > > can use two or more packages in one app where one uses v1.x e.g. of > > MDB and the other v2.x. Otherwise require_once on v1.x and another > > require_once on v2.x but keeping the classnames you could run into > > bad collisions ... and nothing would work anymore. > > My point is that I don't like to rename packages. I would prefer to > use > > /usr/share/pear/MDB/1/... > /usr/share/pear/MDB/2/... > > for each major version. That will also prevent us from the problems > you described above and it will not make it necessary to change the > infrastructure to support renaming packages. The problem with this concept in my eyes is that you one package might require_once MDB/1/MDB.php and the other MDB/2/MDB.php - which both contain the class MDB, right? And if you require_once both packages you would run into name collisions if you don't rename the classes MDB and MDB2. Or what's wrong about this thougt (that also others on the list share with me)? Stefan