Re: [Coding Standards] Prefix all classes

Quoting Paul M Jones <pmjones@ciaweb.net>:

I guess my point is that pear2/PEAR2_Group_Package is redundant, its double prefixing which seems a bit pointless

I can see your point on that. Even so, I think it's a small bit of redundancy that occurs only at install/upgrade time, but provides clarity in a multi-channel environment. To reiterate the earlier point (and not to add work for Greg ;-) it might be nice convention to state that the first element in the package name is assumed to be the channel nickname. That would eliminate the redundancy auto-magic-ally, and could help to encourage all channels to follow good name-spacing conventions.

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but a thought that occurred to me last night is that we're probably (well, definitely) going to have PEAR2 versions of packages that currently exist in PEAR which will presumably have the same package name. I wonder if we'd be better off calling the packages PEAR2_Name to avoid user confusion between installation of pear/Name and pear2/Name? Adam -- Adam Harvey PEAR Profile: <http://pear.php.net/user/aharvey> Blog: <http://xn--9bi.net/>