PEAR naming convention for Service_* packages

Hi, (following comments under Service_Safari proposal) I agree. Package naming convention for Services_* is overdue. Going with Service_Provider_Service seems a reasonable choice. For providers currently offering only one service, we could allow Service_Provider as package name, but usable only through a factory or singleton method. This way if additional services are added by that provider later only, we reduce the risk of BC and inconsistency across packages. Unless there is an existing standard agreed upon by all the providers to provide one type of service, I don't think it would be wise to allow Service_TypeOfService_*. Since Services are pretty much provider-centric. -Philippe