Re: PEAR2 wiki document

On 8/26/07, Travis Swicegood <development@domain51.com> wrote: > > Re: Namespaces and package names: > I'm not thrilled with mixing _ and ::. Using PEAR2_HTTP_Request to > install PEAR2::HTTP::Request doesn't make sense to me. I would much rather > see it as pyrus install PEAR2::HTTP::Request. I'm not sure I see the reason > to use underscores in place of double-colons within the name other than BC > which PEAR2 hasn't been worried with thus far. Having it said that way, I'm inclined to agree. If the "need" that was solved by the naming convention PEAR_Package_Class was only for namespacing, and the new PEAR2::Package::Class namespacing now solves the need, I can understand letting this naming convention go as part of the PEAR2 move. On another note, what about incorporating a channel level namespace into the > installer? Channels currently serve as a faux-namespace, but if we have > real ones couldn't we remove the pear.example.com from the beginning and > replace that with the fully declared namespace? This being the case I think > we'll need an organization outside of PEAR to serve as a registrar for > namespaces within PHP land to help avoid any namespace conflicts, but that's > a topic for another discussion. Sounds like the com.sun.* and org.npr.* type of top-level package namespacing from Java... therefore, sounds reasonable to me. Then again, the last note in the Data Files section of the wikidoc ( http://wiki.pear.php.net/index.php/PEAR2_Standards#Data_files) seems to tell me that the channel is indeed acting as an implicit top-level namespace, even if it is not having to be explicitly named in the package's code itself. Am I incorrect here? -- CRB - BC 1B 64 4A 8D DE 49 E8 C3 7D CC EE 1A AD EE F5