Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 17:17 -0500, Travis Swicegood wrote: > Hey everyone; snip > http://wiki.pear.php.net/index.php/PEAR2_Naming_Standards > > Please review it and post your thoughts here for discussion. It is > slated for a vote @ the next PEAR Group meeting on September 14th, so > now is your opportunity to sway our opinion. > The proposed spec looks good and whatever ends up being finalized, I'll gladly port and maintain all packages for which I'm responsible. One concern I have with the proposal is of making namespaces and packages synonymous. When we do this, we lose one of the intended uses of namespaces which is to provide a categorizational hierarchy for classes. For example, I maintain the PEAR1 Crypt_GPG package. In the proposed standard, the namespace would become pear2::crypt_gpg. I think it should really be pear2::encryption::gpg. I'm sure one of the reasons for the direct package-name-to-namespace mapping is ease of development from svn, and if The PEAR Group feels it is a sacrifice that needs to be made, so be it. My last concern is more a matter of preference. Since PEAR1 does not support namespaces, do we have to use 'pear2' as the root namespace? I'd much rather 'pear'. Cheers, Mike