Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

Bertrand Mansion wrote:

<alan@akbkhome.com> wrote :

Chuck Hagenbuch wrote:

Quoting Tobias Schlitt <tobias@schlitt.info>:

No, please start naming correctly in the manor of <Category>_<Packagename>. There will be an RFC for correct naming today evening.

Then there needs to be many, many more top-level categories. Making Tools_ a part of a bunch of classnames is just plain silly.

This does make sense.. - although the Category should not really be abbreviations eg.(Conf), or acronims (VCS), good clear names I'm not sure about the 100% category -> prefixing The category is for pearweb really.. - the prefixing is more to prevent use killing the global class namespace.

Or maybe Versioning_SVN, Versioning_Subversion ?

I dont have a solution, I just want to point out something: For the most part the prefixing is done since we lack namespaces. Another reason is that we want to make it clear from the class name where the file can be found in the filesystem (pear path), especially to enable nice autoloading etc. Therefore my previous comments might have been easily misunderstood. I also dont think we need to have a 1-1 mapping between the pearweb category and the class prefix. Especially as its in our best interest to try to keep the prefixes as short as possible. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07