Re: Doctrine base class

Le 29 déc. 06 à 13:47, Lukas Kahwe Smith a écrit :

Martin Jansen wrote:

seems fine for me if the package is called DB_Doctrine.

I would prefer a different naming scheme for several reasons. 1) DB_Doctrine would be confusing since Doctrine essentially replaces DB/MDB2/DataObject etc. So a naming like DB_ would be highly confusing 2) Doctrine will have many many subpackages which means we will end up with very long package names, the shorter the better. 3) Doctrine is already somewhat known in the community (especially in symfony). As such I would hope for Doctrine to be a "top" level package. We have a standard naming convention for new major version numbers, which I used in the MDB to MDB2 transition. I am not sure how to deal with things in this case. DB2 would be confusing, which leaves DBv2. The entire "M" prefix thing in MDB was more a working title initially too. As such I would personally prefer if we stick with Doctrine. For one thats what its known for outside already. While the name itself is not selfdescriptory I think it will still be clearer for users what it is and how it relates (or rather that it does not relate to them) to DB/MDB2. With LiveUser we have another precedent where for one we wanted to clearly separate the name from Auth, so we ended up with an "invented" name.

I am -1 on Doctrine. The name should be DB_Doctrine since it is related to databases. The fact it replaces DB/MDB2/DBDO, or not, doesn't matter. There are some standards, we must respect them and make no exceptions otherwise we will endup with clashes and misunderstandings (what is this Doctrine thing that lives in my pear dir???). -- Bertrand Mansion Mamasam Work : http://www.mamasam.com Blog : http://golgote.freeflux.net