Re: Two suggested changes to the interop spec

David Zülke wrote: > Hi folks, > > a) I think we should use "SHOULD", not "MUST", for the > "Interface" and > "Abstract" suffixes. The simple reason is that they are not required for > the standard autoloader; it'll work no matter what the class name is. > I've seen lots of complaints about "Interface", "Abstract" or both of > them, and I guess it doesn't hurt to give folks some freedom there. This makes sense, stronger separation of "must have for autoloader to work" and "best practices" > b) we should require that the standard Exception interface or > implementation be put in the namespace that is the reasonable choice for > the situation in question. For instance, ZF might have an exception per > package, but if a small project owns a vendor namespace (e.g. PHPCouch) > with just a couple sub-packages that are not usable independently of one > another, it'd be nonsense to require base exceptions from all these > subpackages, as they'd be pretty much meaningless. Maybe we could define > a "project level" that can be either the vendor level, or the package > level, depending on the intention of the library in question. This also connects to my concern with requiring vendor/subpackagename/Class in sub-packages. Perhaps the solution is to explicitly state that a vendor can define what a "package" is, and also to explicitly state that sub-packages can be defined as clear entities that can optionally follow the parent package's naming and/or exception rules? Greg