RE: [PEAR-DEV] [RFC_v3] Handling Backwards Compatibility in PEAR
| From: | Stefan Neufeind | Date: | Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:36:00 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PEAR-DEV] [RFC_v3] Handling Backwards Compatibility in PEAR | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-21995@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 25 Sep 2003 at 14:29, Lukas Smith wrote:
> > From: Tobias Schlitt [mailto:tobias@schlitt.info]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:26 PM
> > To: pear-dev@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] [RFC_v3] Handling Backwards Compatibility in
> PEAR
> >
> >
> > Zitat von Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>:
> >
> > >> Of course, I'd like to know what everyone thinks - is the error
> message
> > >> need worth the extra "_v" ? Or should we go with Alan's
> > >> suggestion below?
> >
> > Greg, I agree with you. I like the Foo_vX method much more that
> > FooX.
> The
> > LDAP/DB2/... examples raise IMHO much higher than one PEAR package
> (IPv4).
>
> Especially the extra underscore highlights the fact that it is a
> postfix and not part of the package name.
... and therefor might be easier to parse as well as be more
intuitive. We can't make sure that we will never again have an ldap /
ldap2 or something like that. And we can't change the existing names.
So I'm for the _vX-solution, so everything is clear and strict.
Stefan