Re: extension: phpdoc support and extensions - Feedback requested

On 06.02.2010, at 11:12, BGHosting.de - power for games wrote: > > > "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 :-) I actually like Pierre's idea. Just take http://pecl.php.net/package/docblock and add necessary functionality there. It will be easier for you and useful for all current users of pecl/docblock. (added CC to pecl/docblock's author) Greg, what do you think about it?