Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

I can't actually understand so heat discussion. We have a naming convention, if the file is located at PEAR/ErrorStack.php the class should be named PEAR_ErrorStack. The "PEAR_" prefix stuff, is pointless, XML_Parser is as "pear" as PEAR_Error, the prefix just reflects the directory the class is installed. Tomas V.V.Cox Greg Beaver wrote:

Aidan Lister wrote:

Now, if we get into the guts of it, why did you take such offence to such a meek statement. It does not criticise the author AT ALL. If you were offended, I am deeply apologetic.

meek? "highly stupid" is a very arrogant way to express dissatisfaction. I don't wish to belabor this point, perhaps we can leave the point of the tone of voice behind us.

When ErrorStack was proposed, it was proposed as ErrorStack. There was a great deal of discussion about the name, and everyone was discussing how nifty the package was. Then, out of the blue (from my perspective), an email appears with "well everyone loves this package so we'll integrate it into the core and delete the proposal". Now, I was very, very new to PEAR then so there may have been a lot of discussion I was not privy to, however it seems that the name was not decided by common consensus.

Since you put it this way, I would like to let the facts (newsgroup archives) contradict this statement. The name was agreed upon after a few days of wrangling with active devs both on irc and on the newsgroup. Two things you should know about: the package would probably have been vetoed by the PEAR group if I insisted on separating it from the core PEAR package. As soon as the package became a part of the core PEAR package, the entire group of PEAR developers had control over the name. This includes Stig, Tomas, Pierre-Alain, and myself. P-A and Tomas agreed that the name needed to change to include a PEAR_ prefix to help with namespacing. I understood the logic behind this, but had some reservations, naturally, because I put careful thought into the original name "Error_Stack." After some convincing, rather than simply decide on a new name and go with it, I sought public input on the name. The first message posted regarding a name change from Error_Stack was on March 16 (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=107945241214893&w=2) asking for help naming the class, and I posted a public message with the result on March 19, 2004 (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=107965802918599&w=2), and there were no negative reactions to the name. You should also note that I preferred something shorter, like PEAR_ErrStack - this was a group decision.

My point is this: I think we should seriously think about the choice of name for such an excellent package, and not put unnecessary barriers in the way of success.

and my point is that you are right, but that extremely serious thought was given to the name, more so than many packages. I appreciate the help you're trying to provide, but I don't understand the logic. PEAR_Exception is another error-handling addition to the core PEAR package that is expected to be used by all php5 PEAR projects. Should we call it something else like "Better_Exception" so that others will not be offended by the PEAR_ prefix? Greg