Re: Doctrine base class
| From: | Arnaud Limbourg | Date: | Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:55:10 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Doctrine base class | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-45367@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Stephan Schmidt wrote:
Hi, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:Now that you mention it, this makes sense. DB_Doctrine does not seem too good a choice though. Arnaud.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.-1 on Doctrine. If I use any library, that uses the non-PEAR version of Doctrine, two classes with the same name will be included which results in an error. I find it strange, that one day, we discuss prefixing all new classes with PEAR_ and you vote +1 and now you want to name a class just Doctrine...