Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

On Sep 1, 2008, at 10:59 , Alexey Borzov wrote:

This is warranted by the lack of adoption by anyone outside PEAR and in some cases open hostility toward the PEAR naming schema by those same people.

"...examples of said hostility can be found here and there". Or can't they?

Symfony, Cake, CodeIgniter, the whole of PHPClasses, etc.

Zend Framework and SolarPHP are the only two packages outside of PEAR that I know that use the PEAR naming schema.

"PEAR naming schema was so spectacularly bad that Zend adopted it". Yeah, right. Zend dumb, we smart, we drop schema.

In a point of fairness, ZF's adoption of the PEAR naming schema was the work of months of internal argument and bickering. I think they did the right thing, but it was not an easy sell. (What the original architects wanted was far less maintainable.)

This naming schema provides a simple blueprint that can be adopted by anyone wishing to package their PHP code without having to invent some sorta of pseudo-categorization schema like PEAR1 while also addressing the concerns of those of us who use tools like Subversion and Git - including their svn:externals and git:submodules features - on a daily basis in their job.

Once again I see the svn:externals handwaving here. Can you please describe a real world scenario where svn:externals will be useful for working with PEAR packages? Thanks in advance.

I found the svn:externals argument a strong enough one to make allowances for it in Solar. You can read a bit about it (indirectly, I admit) here: http://solarphp.org/manual:getting_started:skeleton_system -- Paul M. Jones http://paul-m-jones.com/