Re: Doctrine base class

Arnaud Limbourg wrote: > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> Bertrand Mansion wrote: >> >>> 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???). >> >> DB_Doctrine is not mandated by any standard. If at all it would be a >> new major version of DB itself. > > More likely a subpackage of db, a là Validate_. hello, this can become a war if we don't care ;-) All of you are right some how... But what are you talking about? Is this a discussion of "is it ok (for now) to keep the Doctrine naming as it is" - or is it a discussion of "what about our standards" ? ;-) My opinion is that you should keep it as Doctrine - OR clean up the whole DB branch of PEAR. For example we could rename DB into something like DB_Classic and then rename Doctrine into DB_Doctrine. Or do you want to rename Doctrine into DBv2 someday? I would prefer using prefixes ONLY as category namespace NOT as package name... but who wants to here me.. :-( Regards, Matthias