Re: Naming clash (was: http extension)

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

pecl_http is my suggestion. Even if we somehow manage to isolate pear & pecl, having 2 packages with the same name would end up causing endless confusion.

well this is quite a nasty issue in general and has already bitten us on the soap front iirc. even worse its likely to bite us quite often. however I fear there is little we can do about this aside from ugly prefixes for the project that comes second. thinking ... for php5 autoload does provide some sort of solution if, and only if, the api's are compatible, since in php4 a require_once('foobar.php') is not going to pick up that an extension was already loaded .. then again for those cases the solution is probably to make new releases for each variant (ext or userland) that acknowlede the possible existance of the other. then again maybe we just leave this to the users to do a class_exists() check themselves. for packages that are not api compatible things are different of course. i assume in this case we are talking about one being procedural and the other object oriented? in that case we only have a package naming clash and not really any real issue during runtime. having a separate channel for pecl and pear (see greg's question on pear-core http://news.php.net/php.pear.core/2232) would provide a sufficient enough solution imho. regards, lukas