Re: PEAR2 package naming standards (namespace usage)

Hi, Joe Stump wrote:

Propel, Phing, Creole ... I think those follow the PEAR1 class-to-file naming convention as well.

I think Travis's point (and mine as well since Travis and I chatted at length about this) is that we shouldn't be so narrowly focused on the past when it comes to PEAR2. PHP 5.3+ has a lot of goodies that we could have only dreamed about when PEAR1's conventions were largely set in stone. With that backdrop I think it's perfectly reasonable to rethink everything and anything. I don't think the focus with regards to PEAR2 should be, "Well, this is how we did it in PEAR1."

Two points: 1) Those who propose changes need to justify them, not those who oppose. E.g. I may suggest that we begin naming our classes in Latin and writing documentation in Old Church Slavonic as we had problems with both class names and documentation in PEAR1. But then *I* have to prove that our problems were caused by using English language and that switching to those "new" ones will actually *help*. Note: the argument that biologists used Latin for centuries to name animals, plants and whatever else so it must also work for classes isn't a good one, either. 2) When we are discussing Latin, Old Church Slavonic and svn:externals proposals we aren't discussing actual existing problems in PEAR1 that may be fixed in PEAR2.

I haven't read through all of this thread yet, but wanted to chime in with this point before I dove in headfirst. I'm sure there are fine technical points on both sides of the arguments as I highly respect all of the developers involved, but I wanted to make this point before I donned the flame retardant suit. :) Regards, --Joe