Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

On Aug 27, 2008, at 5:15 AM, David Jean Louis wrote:

Martin Jansen a écrit :

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:16 AM, David Jean Louis <izimobil@gmail.com

wrote:

Speaking of the lowercase idea, I'm all for it, but I think this decision

What is the exact reason for going lowercase? I'd prefer to stick to PEAR2::Foo::Bar::Baz() because this is more in line with the rest of the coding standards (-> camelCase) in my opinion.

I think the main reason is to easily differenciate namespace parts which are not classes from real classes, eg: pear2::foo::bar::BazClass

David, is correct here Martin. The reason is outlined from in the wiki:

By changing the package to lowercase it becomes immediately apparent what the instantiable class is.

With mixed case through out the fully-qualified class name, it becomes ambiguous as to what is what.

But as I said, I think this decision should not be taken without some sort of consensus with the outside-pear world ;)

If there were other sources to pull from, I'd be happy. The only things that have been proposed are changes to SPL (which I believe have all been shot down, correct me if I'm wrong?) and one post by MWOP about Zend Framework. Without any external guidance in PHP, we were left to rely solely on our experience with namespaces/packages in other languages. I believe this RFC accurately meshes the traditional PEAR1 style naming that we've become accustom to and the generally accepted use of namespaces throughout other languages that have dealt with the same issues. -T