RE: [PEAR-DEV] Re: [RfC] XML_Beautifier

> > My point is that I don't like to rename packages. I would prefer to > > use Not to be too much of a smart ass, but evidently their are a lot of people developing PEAR modules that don't like to write documentation. The questions is not what we want to do, but what there are logical reasons to do in a certain way. > > > > /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)? > Yes, and if you want to provide MDB2 with the class name of MDB then: class MDB extends MDB2 { } Thanks, Rob