Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

Baptiste Autin wrote:

Ok thanks Joshua. Your examples clarify a lot the RFC (to me), and I was quite out of the matter regarding the "SVN problem". Maybe I would advise to include these examples in the RFC. I also found this explanation quite enlightening:

The problem is that the PEAR1 setup overlaps files into the same directory. You can can't use an svn external for an HTTP_Request and a HTTP_Header package since they both have a file in the HTTP dir. This RFC means all code for a package is in one base dir and there is no overlap.

I had been inventing very complex reasons for that "SVN problem", while it was just that.

In my opinion Arnaud and Greg's initial RFC wasn't enough. It largely kept the PEAR1 pattern just replacing _ with ::.

It also stated "A::B::C::D" (namespace) implies "A/B/C/D" (file layout), which is quite important. Travis's RFC does not remind that rule, and, at a moment, I thought it was replaced by some other obscure mixing recipe involving the underscore. But if you promise me that the class PEAR2::PHP_UML::XMI::Builder can be stored into PEAR2/PHP_UML/XMI/Builder.php, then I can sleep peacefully. Baptiste What you want is allowed. Travis and I will be updating the RFC with more examples to try to add more clarity.

One of us will post again after the updates are done. Clarity is very important after all since the point is too let people know how to name things. -josh