Re: Re: Final RFC for Net_SMPP/Net_SMPP_Client

On 7/19/05, Ian Eure <ieure@php.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 19 July 2005 04:30 pm, Lukas Smith wrote: > > Ian Eure wrote: > > > What I'm looking for here is a good reason why I should break adherence > > > to the SMPP specification in favor of the PEAR CS. So far, the only > > > argument I've gotten is "because you have to follow PEAR CS," while > > > ignoring many significant cases where it's a bad idea, or they are > > > ignored with no good reason. > > > > the point is to make it possible for users and tools to easily determine > > the location of classes in the directory structure that are referenced > > in their code .. > > > > that this was a good idea was proven once more by the advent of > > __autoload(). > > > Ok. I accept that argument. However, I don't know how much it applies to > Net_SMPP; it knows where it's classes are, and takes care of loading them.. > True, Net_SMPP may know where its classes are. But if, for some reason, someone, say, serialized a Net_SMPP command object then unserialized it __autoload() wouldn't know where to look unless you put some special checks in it. Or if you included the class yourself before using the unserialized object (think sessions). Also, comparing to PHP_Compat isn't really relevant as it is defining *functions* and not *classes*. The rule is for class names. Lastly, you don't need a mapping array. The conversion is simple. $className = str_replace(' ' , '', ucfirst(str_replace('_', ' ', $command))); -- Justin Patrin