Re: PEAR2 Standards

From: 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/)

« previous php.pear.dev (#48794) next »