Re: Doctrine base class

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Stephan Schmidt wrote:

Hi, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

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...

Now that you mention it, this makes sense. DB_Doctrine does not seem too good a choice though.

Err, the PEAR prefix is an entirely different matter. I am talking about the package name really. And here I am voting for Doctrine or if necessary make it a proper new major version of DB as per out naming standards.

I was thinking more of the clash with existing installations of the doctrine package.

But DB_Doctrine is simply wrong, because that would imply Doctrine is a subpackage of DB which it clearly isnt.

I'm not a fan of DB_DOctrine either. Arnaud.