Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

We are currently proposing a flat namespace, so its just <vendor>::<package>::<packagestuff> There has been some talk about having categories before package but I we are really pushing for consistency so if we went the category route all packages would need to be in a category. <vendor>::<cateogry>::<package>::<packagestuff> This might be a viable option but It's not something thats been heavily discussed yet. One benefit to a category approach is it could provide a level for code that is shared between many packages like a standard template interface to live. -josh Kristopher Ives wrote:

Please do set me up in the pear2 repo, and I will start working on my proposal for the PEAR2 branch. One thing I've been annoyeed with concerning the naming is the Services_Shipping part, which I really want to be Services::Shipping, is this possible? I don't have any "fancy" name for my package, just that it's about shipping services :-/ I don't have a production server for 5.3 available, but I do have a local test bed. Cheers, Kristopher Ives On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Joshua Eichorn <josh@bluga.net> wrote:

I believe what you would end up with is: pear2::services_shipping::XML pear2::services_shipping_ups::Driver pear2::services_shipping_dhl::Driver Though i don't have a great understanding of your setup so i can't quite be sure what the best plan would be. PEAR2 svn is all one repo but you would have a different directory for each subpackage so: http://svn.pear.php.net/pear2/services_shipping/trunk/src/... http://svn.pear.php.net/pear2/services_shipping_dhl/trunk/src But there is a default alias for ease of development that checks out all the trunk branches for you and you can check things out in whatever pattern you want so development wise we should be able to get a good solution. Other then that its the same repo so you move files around etc while keeping history. Travis should have more thoughts on what he would suggest as the names. Also i can get you setup in the pear2 sandbox if you'd like to start taking a look at developing for php 5.3 and getting and idea of what namespaces would mean to your code. Have more tests (and eyes) looking at the new conventions is always a good thing. -josh / /Kristopher Ives wrote:

    
Hello all!

I am a new PEAR developer, but I am very eager to adopt to the 5.3 release of PHP and move far away from any existing BC, such as PEAR1. I am proposing Services_Shipping, a driver-based shipping carrier framework. This includes Services_Shipping_XML, which is an abstract set of classes that isn't a driver, but a common set that XML drivers may use. Services_Shipping_UPS and Services_Shipping_DHL are examples of driver sub-packages. As I mentioned I am new to PEAR, but the above arrangement has caused the names of my classes to be very long. For example one of my class names is Services_Shipping_XML_ShipmentReceipt. From my understanding - this is required in PEAR that the Services_Shipping_XML must always be there, due to the lack of namespace/nesting. Under PEAR2 what would the pruposed layout of my packages be? Also, all of my projects are in one SVN repo. Cheers, Kristopher Ives On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Travis Swicegood <development@domain51.com>wrote:

      
Hey everyone;

This summer the PEAR group has been busy making sure PEAR2's ducks are all in a row for the impending PHP 5.3 release. The biggest change that we're all going to get used to in this new version of PHP is namespaces. The quick way to migrate is to replace all _ with ::, shorten some class names, but that ignores this very rare chance to really re-think the way we do package names. The results of some back and forth between myself and the rest of the PEAR Group and other members of the community is this RFC:

      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. -T