|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: Re: Naming clash (was: http extension) - msg#00083List: php.pecl.develpollita@xxxxxxx (Sara Golemon) 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. > > > The *right* solution IMO, is to work towards namespace support in > Zend. I dream about that and real module support (a la python import), missing time to dig in and get the ideas in this part of the ZE... --Pierre Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Naming clash (was: http extension)>> 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. > The *right* solution IMO, is to work towards namespace support in Zend. Can someone who worked on the initial go at Namespaces ennumerate --in specific-- what the limiting factors were? All I've ever heard on list was "It was fundamentally broken". -Sara Next Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: Naming clash (was: http extension)Lukas Smith wrote: 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. Channels solves this problem elegantly. $ pear install pecl/http $ pear install pear/http no conflicts, totally clear. Greg Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Naming clash (was: http extension)>> 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. > The *right* solution IMO, is to work towards namespace support in Zend. Can someone who worked on the initial go at Namespaces ennumerate --in specific-- what the limiting factors were? All I've ever heard on list was "It was fundamentally broken". -Sara Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: Naming clash (was: http extension)Lukas Smith wrote: 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. Channels solves this problem elegantly. $ pear install pecl/http $ pear install pear/http no conflicts, totally clear. Greg Loading Comments...
|
|
