Re: Re: revision to the standard that would make me happy

-- Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote (on Tuesday, 07 July 2009, 11:13 AM -0500): > Travis Swicegood wrote: <snip> > Also, the change I'm proposing is minor, not a colossal complex > revision. I am saying that instead of forcing this directory structure: > > pear2/ > package1 > package2 > package1_subcomponent > package1_another_thing > > it allows developers *at their discretion* to decide that optional > sub-components can remain within their parent package: > > pear2/ > package1 > package1/subcomponent > package1/another/thing > package2 > > Is that really so terribly difficult to understand that it kills off the > future of any easily understandable standards document? I think you misread the recommendations, honestly. The example you have actually fits perfectly within the recommendations, as we specifically had verbiage indicating a package/component could also have subpackages/subcomponents, nested arbitrarily deep. My recollection is that this was actually the *recommended* way of delivering subcomponents (versus using the nested_virtual_namespace notation). How they are packaged later for distribution is entirely left to the project/package maintainer, and likely better left to a build script anyways. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Project Lead | matthew@zend.com Zend Framework | http://framework.zend.com/