Re: PEAR2 Standards
| From: | Jon Parise | Date: | Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:42:32 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR2 Standards | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-48794@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 05:46:23PM +0100, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
> The PEAR Group would like to announce the PEAR2 Standards. We want to
> point out the document is not final. Everybody is encouraged to take a
> look and give feedback. You can refer to the document as "version 1" of
> the standards.
...
> You can find the document at the following url:
>
> http://pear.php.net/manual/en/pear2cs.php
1. The "Introduction" section isn't really an introduction. The
first paragraph is sort of an introduction, but the rest of the
section simply extols the virtues of __autoload().
2. I'm not a fan of the 'PEAR2' namespace. Let's just use 'PEAR'.
Namespaces don't currently exist for all intents and purposes so
there shouldn't be any conflicts with existing code.
Has the requirement for this name leaked out of the necessity to
use __autoload()? If so, I would consider that unfortunate.
3. Please include more detail on the prohibition of 'include' and
friends. The current document states that users will be expected
to load files via __autoload(), etc. Can the package use
'include' internally? I don't understand what "import with a
comment" means.
4. The required directory structure includes "tests" and "examples"
(plural) but "doc" singular. I would prefer "docs" for
consistency.
5. Does PEAR2 have a "tests" role? It appears to be just "test" in
PEAR(1).
6. If package.xml replacement tasks shouldn't be used to retrieve
path locations for 'php', 'data', or 'www' files, I would suggest
making it impossible to do so instead of adding a prohibition in
the coding standards document.
7. Please explain how I should go about porting existing PEAR
packages to PEAR2. For example, can I still use PEAR_Error, or
must everything now use PEAR2::Exception?
8. I would suggest producing a single "PEAR2 Coding Standards"
document instead of just providing addenda to the existing PEAR(1)
document. The current format is going to be confusing for both
new and existing package authors who haven't been following the
on-going evolution of the standards.
--
Jon Parise (jon of php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)