Re: Doctrine base class

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > 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. > > Konsta what are your thoughts on this? We have not talked about this yet. Hi, top-level in PEAR2 means PEAR2_Packagename, so it would be PEAR2_Doctrine. Greg