RE: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
Dmitry Stogov
We are still working on namespace concept and its features.
I am not sure that existing concept will work well as is.
So please, don't make us additional troubles.
The name is important but it may be changed later, first look into =
concept
itself.
Do you completely satisfied with it?
Have you tried to use it in real life applications or frameworks?
Have you measured slowdown?
Do you see holes in concept?
These questions are more important then the name...
BTW: I personally would accept 'package' for current implementation, but =
in
the future we would need to rename it back :)
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Schl=D8ter [mailto:joha...@php.net]=20
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:14 PM
> To: Dmitry Stogov
> Cc: 'PHP Internals List'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
>=20
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:33 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > At least, I have one additional namespace related patch,=20
> that is not=20
> > accepted yet.
> >
> > Renaming may require a lot of additional work with it.
>=20
> Well, in my experience it's simpler to do such renaming=20
> inside an patch (then it's a simple sed command) than after=20
> committing it to the tree where you have to make sure not to=20
> accidentally rename other, unrelated, stuff, too. That's the=20
> reason why I tried to do the renaming asap.
>=20
> > Also, I am not sure that allbody agree with "package".
>=20
> I didn't read all mails in that thread but from what I saw=20
> only Stanislaw was against renaming it. I for myself don't=20
> care really much about the name, but I tend to follow=20
> Marcus's argumentation[1] for "package", it tastes a bit=20
> better for me.=20
>=20
> What I would like is a soonish decision so we can advertise=20
> that feature and get people testing it and playing with it=20
> without having to fear that their (test-)code breaks the next=20
> day. (I didn't say it won't brake the next day then, but it's=20
> good to give less excuses for not testing that stuff. This=20
> testing would also include mysqlnd, unicode and whatever else=20
> we have in HEAD right now)
>=20
> johannes
>=20
> [1] http://news.php.net/php.internals/31328
>=20
> > Thanks. Dmitry.
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:25 PM
> > > To: Dmitry Stogov
> > > Cc: 'PHP Internals List'
> > > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > I have no serious objections about renaming. I am=20
> asking to wait a
> > > > bit.
> > >=20
> > > If you think "package" is fine, why wait with renaming it?
> > >=20
> > > regards,
> > > Derick
> > >=20
> > > --
> > > Derick Rethans
> > > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
> > >=20
> >=20
>=20
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Tyler Lawson
For all of those distributing frameworks and such, use "package". And
for everybody else, who just wants to shorten their class names, use
"namespace".
It's probably easier said than done, but why not just alias one to the
other?
Tyler
Johannes Schlüter
I've updated the patch to be compatible with Dmitry's latest changes:
http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package_20070817.diff
johannes
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:26 +0200, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages as our
> implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the corresponding
> patch which tries to get rid of all "namespaces" and "ns" (well, not all
> "ns" only the namespace-related ones of course) used in the code.
> Additionally I changed all package-tests. Any objections?
>
> Does anybody (with the move-on-CVS-server powers) care about the history
> of the tests? Then please cp ZendEngine2/tests/ns_* to pkg_* there else
> I'll do a simple cvs rm and cvs add.
>
> The patch is at
> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package.diff and
> the tarball with the changed tests at
> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_package_tests.tar.bz2
>
> johannes
David Coallier
On 8/17/07, Johannes Schl=FCter <joha...@php.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've updated the patch to be compatible with Dmitry's latest changes:
> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package_20070817.dif=
f
>
> johannes
>
> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:26 +0200, Johannes Schl=FCter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages as ou=
r
> > implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the correspondin=
g
> > patch which tries to get rid of all "namespaces" and "ns" (well, not al=
l
> > "ns" only the namespace-related ones of course) used in the code.
> > Additionally I changed all package-tests. Any objections?
> >
> > Does anybody (with the move-on-CVS-server powers) care about the histor=
y
> > of the tests? Then please cp ZendEngine2/tests/ns_* to pkg_* there else
> > I'll do a simple cvs rm and cvs add.
> >
> > The patch is at
> > http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package.diff and
> > the tarball with the changed tests at
> > http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_package_tests.tar.bz2
> >
> > johannes
> >
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--=20
David Coallier,
Founder & Software Architect,
Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com)
51.42.06.70.18
Ilia Alshanetsky
people consider to be namespaces it is close enough and I think the =20
name "namespaces" is most appropriate and clear cut. We don't call =20
PHP objects "Zend Objects" or some other strange name, I don't see =20
why namespaces should be any different IMHO.
On 17-Aug-07, at 11:06 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
> Oh dear. I thought the general feeling was to stick with namespaces?
>
> On 17/08/07, Johannes Schl=FCter <joha...@php.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've updated the patch to be compatible with Dmitry's latest changes:
>> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/=20
>> zend_namespace_to_package_20070817.diff
>>
>> johannes
>>
>> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:26 +0200, Johannes Schl=FCter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages =20=
>>> as our
>>> implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the =20
>>> corresponding
>>> patch which tries to get rid of all "namespaces" and "ns" (well, =20
>>> not all
>>> "ns" only the namespace-related ones of course) used in the code.
>>> Additionally I changed all package-tests. Any objections?
>>>
>>> Does anybody (with the move-on-CVS-server powers) care about the =20
>>> history
>>> of the tests? Then please cp ZendEngine2/tests/ns_* to pkg_* =20
>>> there else
>>> I'll do a simple cvs rm and cvs add.
>>>
>>> The patch is at
>>> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package.diff =20=
>>> and
>>> the tarball with the changed tests at
>>> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_package_tests.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> johannes
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>>
>>
>
>
> --=20
> -----
> Richard Quadling
> Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?=20
> c=3DZEND002498&r=3D213474731
> "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
Ilia Alshanetsky
David Coallier
> While PHP implementation of namespaces is may not be 100% of what
>
If we start calling things what they are, then we might as well do it
for the *namespaces* as well ? So ccall them package. And Stanislav,
it's not only because java does it that way, it's because python also
does, and also because c++ doesn't.
After all, why discussing the color of the bikeshed when it's already
painted and it's a dogshed ?
>
> On 17-Aug-07, at 11:06 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
>
> > Oh dear. I thought the general feeling was to stick with namespaces?
> >
> > On 17/08/07, Johannes Schl=FCter <joha...@php.net> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've updated the patch to be compatible with Dmitry's latest changes:
> >> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/
> >> zend_namespace_to_package_20070817.diff
> >>
> >> johannes
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:26 +0200, Johannes Schl=FCter wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think we reached the consensus to rename namespaces to packages
> >>> as our
> >>> implementation is more package-like. Therefore I wrote the
> >>> corresponding
> >>> patch which tries to get rid of all "namespaces" and "ns" (well,
> >>> not all
> >>> "ns" only the namespace-related ones of course) used in the code.
> >>> Additionally I changed all package-tests. Any objections?
> >>>
> >>> Does anybody (with the move-on-CVS-server powers) care about the
> >>> history
> >>> of the tests? Then please cp ZendEngine2/tests/ns_* to pkg_*
> >>> there else
> >>> I'll do a simple cvs rm and cvs add.
> >>>
> >>> The patch is at
> >>> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_namespace_to_package.diff
> >>> and
> >>> the tarball with the changed tests at
> >>> http://schlueters.de/~johannes/php/zend_package_tests.tar.bz2
> >>>
> >>> johannes
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----
> > Richard Quadling
> > Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?
> > c=3DZEND002498&r=3D213474731
> > "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
>
> Ilia Alshanetsky
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--=20
David Coallier,
Founder & Software Architect,
Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com)
51.42.06.70.18
--
Ilia Alshanetsky
Most people don't know wtf you are referring to by "package", but =20
nearly everyone knows the concept of namespaces. Packages is name for =20=
an implementation of namespaces, calling it packages just because =20
language XYZ that I like, does not sound like the best of ideas.
On 17-Aug-07, at 11:18 AM, David Coallier wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <il...@prohost.org> wrote:
>> While PHP implementation of namespaces is may not be 100% of what
>> people consider to be namespaces it is close enough and I think the
>> name "namespaces" is most appropriate and clear cut. We don't call
>> PHP objects "Zend Objects" or some other strange name, I don't see
>> why namespaces should be any different IMHO.
>>
>
> If we start calling things what they are, then we might as well do it
> for the *namespaces* as well ? So ccall them package. And Stanislav,
> it's not only because java does it that way, it's because python also
> does, and also because c++ doesn't.
>
> After all, why discussing the color of the bikeshed when it's already
> painted and it's a dogshed ?
>>
>> On 17-Aug-07, at 11:06 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
>>
>>> Oh dear. I thought the general feeling was to stick with namespaces?
>>>
>>> On 17/08/07, Johannes Schl=FCter <joha...@php.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've updated the patch to be compatible with Dmitry's latest =20
Stanislav Malyshev
> know. You want to release a sort of namespace implementation and
> frustrate users, that expect a true namespace implementation.
Please stop doing this. PHP namespace implementation is as "true" as it
gets, even in current form (which of course might be changed, extended,
etc. but it doesn't make it less true).
If you have any specific feature missing (except for braces which were
discussed already in length so please mention them _only_ if you have
something new to say about it) - this is exactly the time to say it,
since we are still in prototyping stage, so please do bring it forward.
But please do not just decry it because it uses slightly different
syntax than some other language you know.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
st...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: st...@zend.com
scott lewis
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 17 Aug 2007, at 1146, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Again, you are trying to use a keyword based on what developer's most
>> know. You want to release a sort of namespace implementation and
>> frustrate users, that expect a true namespace implementation.
>
> Please stop doing this. PHP namespace implementation is as "true"
> as it gets, even in current form (which of course might be changed,
> extended, etc. but it doesn't make it less true).
I think you've missed his point. He's not talking about the abstract
concept of namespaces. He's talking about specific language features
accessed via the keyword 'namespace'.
The core of the argument to rename is that using the keyword
'namespace' will confuse developers who have experience with that
keyword in other languages, since PHP does not match the most common
syntax (C++). This is completely separate from whether the PHP
language feature is a good implementation of the abstract namespace
concept. The keyword does not define the feature -- the keyword
defines _expectations_ about the keyword.
PHP is getting a namespaces feature -- this is excellent. Giving it
the same keyword as a syntax-incompatible feature of other languages
is going to cause confusion -- that's bad.
Now, the keyword 'package' has similar problems, but to a much
smaller degree since the syntax of the PHP language feature is
similar to that of the Java feature. Still, any confusion is best
avoided so 'package' should probably join 'namespace' on the pile of
rejected keywords.
'prefix', as suggested in the other thread, seems to nicely describe
the concept and would still describe the concept if the feature was
extended out to full-on C++- or Java-style syntax. And I can't think
of any languages with a confusingly similar keyword.
scott.
--Apple-Mail-2-784963526
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
name=PGP.sig
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGxkG9Ozt9JkeMzqkRAs/7AKC4W5XbvMFYX6B9i6tuY5BN5pJGbgCeKQkW
vhYrvy1VUlZjMaG5fmHX0dM=
=wbkh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail-2-784963526--
Marcus Boerger
LOL, and in the future we have to rename PHP as it is no longer for
homepages?
Friday, August 17, 2007, 9:01:12 AM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> We are still working on namespace concept and its features.
> I am not sure that existing concept will work well as is.
> So please, don't make us additional troubles.
> The name is important but it may be changed later, first look into concept
> itself.
> Do you completely satisfied with it?
> Have you tried to use it in real life applications or frameworks?
> Have you measured slowdown?
> Do you see holes in concept?
> These questions are more important then the name...
> BTW: I personally would accept 'package' for current implementation, but in
> the future we would need to rename it back :)
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Johannes SchlØter [mailto:joha...@php.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:14 PM
>> To: Dmitry Stogov
>> Cc: 'PHP Internals List'
>> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:33 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> > At least, I have one additional namespace related patch,
>> that is not
>> > accepted yet.
>> >
>> > Renaming may require a lot of additional work with it.
>>
>> Well, in my experience it's simpler to do such renaming
>> inside an patch (then it's a simple sed command) than after
>> committing it to the tree where you have to make sure not to
>> accidentally rename other, unrelated, stuff, too. That's the
>> reason why I tried to do the renaming asap.
>>
>> > Also, I am not sure that allbody agree with "package".
>>
>> I didn't read all mails in that thread but from what I saw
>> only Stanislaw was against renaming it. I for myself don't
>> care really much about the name, but I tend to follow
>> Marcus's argumentation[1] for "package", it tastes a bit
>> better for me.
>>
>> What I would like is a soonish decision so we can advertise
>> that feature and get people testing it and playing with it
>> without having to fear that their (test-)code breaks the next
>> day. (I didn't say it won't brake the next day then, but it's
>> good to give less excuses for not testing that stuff. This
>> testing would also include mysqlnd, unicode and whatever else
>> we have in HEAD right now)
>>
>> johannes
>>
>> [1] http://news.php.net/php.internals/31328
>>
>> > Thanks. Dmitry.
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:25 PM
>> > > To: Dmitry Stogov
>> > > Cc: 'PHP Internals List'
>> > > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I have no serious objections about renaming. I am
>> asking to wait a
>> > > > bit.
>> > >
>> > > If you think "package" is fine, why wait with renaming it?
>> > >
>> > > regards,
>> > > Derick
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Derick Rethans
>> > > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
>> > >
>> >
>>
Best regards,
Marcus
Marcus Boerger
interesting, we are still in prototype form....hmmm since when do we
commit proto types? I thought we are supposed to show patches until they
work as expected. So remembering the other new mails you guys wrote
recently....we might drop all of this again, we might rename all of it, we
might replace it completley... what the hell is going on here?
marcus
Friday, August 17, 2007, 7:46:44 PM, you wrote:
>> Again, you are trying to use a keyword based on what developer's most
>> know. You want to release a sort of namespace implementation and
>> frustrate users, that expect a true namespace implementation.
> Please stop doing this. PHP namespace implementation is as "true" as it
> gets, even in current form (which of course might be changed, extended,
> etc. but it doesn't make it less true).
> If you have any specific feature missing (except for braces which were
> discussed already in length so please mention them _only_ if you have
> something new to say about it) - this is exactly the time to say it,
> since we are still in prototyping stage, so please do bring it forward.
> But please do not just decry it because it uses slightly different
> syntax than some other language you know.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> st...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829 MSN: st...@zend.com
Robert Cummings
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> LOL, and in the future we have to rename PHP as it is no longer for
> homepages?
I thought it was renamed already to PHP Hypertext Processor :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
Olivier Hill
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 12:13 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
> > Hello Dmitry,
> >
> > LOL, and in the future we have to rename PHP as it is no longer for
> > homepages?
>
> I thought it was renamed already to PHP Hypertext Processor :)
Yes, but since it is recursive, on the second iteration it might become:
Personal Home Page Hypertext Processor :)
We need packspaces, then we could go either way.
Olivier
--
I don't get a buck or two, this post is free.
Stanislav Malyshev
> commit proto types? I thought we are supposed to show patches until they
> work as expected. So remembering the other new mails you guys wrote
> recently....we might drop all of this again, we might rename all of it, we
I don't think it's likely we drop it, as for renaming - wasn't it you
who pushed for it? :) I'm all for leaving it as it is :)
> might replace it completley... what the hell is going on here?
Complex opensource project development? Frankly, I don't know how many
people would even look at it if it was only in patch form - it's very
big and complex patch.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
st...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: st...@zend.com
--
Tony Bibbs
imply tripping over the semantics of it all, right?=0A=0AThinking a bit out=
side the box, how hard would it be to simply use both names, one as an alia=
s of the other? In the end the documentation will probably need to outline=
how the PHP implementation differs from other popular languages. Just see=
ms silly to let a semantics argument muddy the waters. =0A=0A--Tony=0A=0A-=
---- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Stanislav Malyshev <st...@zend.com>=0ATo:=
Marcus Boerger <he...@php.net>=0ACc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.p=
hp.net>=0ASent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:09:34 PM=0ASubject: Re: [PHP-DEV=
] Renaming namespaces to packages=0A=0A> interesting, we are still in pro=
totype form....hmmm since when do we=0A> commit proto types? I thought we a=
re supposed to show patches until they=0A> work as expected. So remembering=
the other new mails you guys wrote=0A> recently....we might drop all of th=
is again, we might rename all of it, we=0A=0AI don't think it's likely we d=
rop it, as for renaming - wasn't it you =0Awho pushed for it? :) I'm all fo=
r leaving it as it is :)=0A=0A> might replace it completley... what the hel=
l is going on here?=0A=0AComplex opensource project development? Frankly, I=
don't know how many =0Apeople would even look at it if it was only in patc=
h form - it's very =0Abig and complex patch.=0A-- =0AStanislav Malyshev, Ze=
nd Software Architect=0As...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/=0A(408)253-882=
9 MSN: st...@zend.com=0A=0A-- =0APHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development M=
ailing List=0ATo unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php=0A=0A=0A=
=0A
Johannes Schlüter
> Having watched this thread intently for the past few weeks, we seem to
>
> Thinking a bit outside the box, how hard would it be to simply use
> both names, one as an alias of the other? In the end the
NOOOO
This means an keyword more for such little reason and much confusion for
users ("all other stuff uses namespaces - why do they use packages?")
that's no option at all.
> documentation will probably need to outline how the PHP implementation
> differs from other popular languages.
Of course that's important independent of anything else.
johannes
> Just seems silly to let a semantics argument muddy the waters.
>
> --Tony
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Stanislav Malyshev <st...@zend.com>
> To: Marcus Boerger <he...@php.net>
> Cc: PHP Internals List <inte...@lists.php.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:09:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
>
> > interesting, we are still in prototype form....hmmm since when do we
> > commit proto types? I thought we are supposed to show patches until they
> > work as expected. So remembering the other new mails you guys wrote
> > recently....we might drop all of this again, we might rename all of it, we
>
> I don't think it's likely we drop it, as for renaming - wasn't it you
> who pushed for it? :) I'm all for leaving it as it is :)
>
> > might replace it completley... what the hell is going on here?
>
> Complex opensource project development? Frankly, I don't know how many
> people would even look at it if it was only in patch form - it's very
> big and complex patch.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> st...@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829 MSN: st...@zend.com
>
l0t3k
"Jani Taskinen" <jani.t...@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:1186751822.2...@localhost.localdomain...
> "package" is also shorter than "namespace". Just commit the stuff, it's
> pointless to argue about it. Majority rules.
and it makes for great alliteration
can you say "Peter picked a Pack of Pecl PHP Packages" ;-)