Re: extension: phpdoc support and extensions - Feedback requested

"Alexey Zakhlestin" <indeyets@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:B3AF0A32-65BA-420C-BDCD-7BA20FF742E7@gmail.com...

Hi. Theoretically it sounds fine, but I don't like the naming. As far as I understood, extension will focus on extended reflection docblock functionality. It is required for your AOP-task but does not provide AOP on it's own. Wouldn't "docblock parser" name be better? If you plan to add actuall AOP implementation later, then, wouldn't it be better to implement it as the second extension, which depends on this first one? I believe, that generalised docblock-parser would be useful for many other projects, which do not need actual AOP-functionality.

OK, I will split up the extensions. There will be an extension that will be called something like "phpdoc". Will this name be ok? As pierre mentioned there is a docblock tokenizer already. The "phpdoc" extension will be all about accessing the phpdoc in OOP. It will extend the core reflection classes, will provide a way to register phpdoc for c-code (other extension) and it will contain some usefull methods (f.e. getting all classes/functions tagged with "@foo"). "phpdoc" will depend on the docblock-tokenizer already present in pecl. "aop" will depend on "phpdoc". Tanks four your feedback, Alexey/Pierre :-)