Renaming namespaces to packages

On 8/10/07, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:

You're absolutly right. +1 here for 'namespaces' (for what its worth as a firstpost on internals)

On Friday 10 August 2007, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

FWIW, the implementation that was committed feels closest to Java, which calls them packages. The next closest parallel feels like it would be XML, where they're called namespaces. I don't know from C#, so can't say how they map there, and never got far enough in C++ to use namespaces there. I'm OK with either name, really. "Namespace" sounds more like what people are asking for in general (rightly or wrongly), and is how I'd probably end up using them, but I can work with either.

On 10/08/07, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:

I don't use C#/C++, but that is what I understand a namespace to be. We hear issues about "polluting the global namespace", as I understand it, this is having too many things which are global and this can lead to other libraries or packages having conflicting names when they are introduced. So by having other namespaces, we can group related entities (classes, functions, variables). External to the namespace, everything within it has a prefix. Ideally the namespace will be unique (not 100% but the namespace is only required for external code to access the content of the namespace, so, in theory, a single line of code is required to be altered to use a different namespace (I think). Internally, the namespace is not required (I think). A package is something completely different. It may be a library of code (or several libraries) or an application or something else entirely. It may or may not implement a namespace (or even have multiple namespaces). A newbie coming across PEAR for the first time will see the word "packages" and I would suggest that trying to separate the meanings of the word "packages" at this stage would require more than normal newbie enthusiasm. I would say a namespace is a programmers thing, whereas a package is more of a distribution thing. You code using namespaces to preserve your classes/functions/variables from global namespace pollution. When it comes to release the code, you would have a package which could indicate dependencies on other packages (like PEAR with its dependency support for example). So, for what it is worth, namespaces should be called namespaces. Richard.

On 8/10/07, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:

The later seems to be more true than any vote we had until now</unicodeflag> --Pierre

Hi, On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:33 +0400, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

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.

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

Why not use both names? 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

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Tijnema wrote:

[snip]

I didn't say it was newer... the flex developers broken BC. regards, Derick

On 16.08.2007 23:40, Tijnema wrote:

It has been discussed numerous times, search the archives. Here is the link for starters: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=618177&aid=1447867&group_id=97492 For quick ones, the answer as to why nobody ever bothered about it: http://marc.info/?l=php-dev&m=105066214431326&w=2

"Latest stable" doesn't always mean "better". We still use autoconf 2.13 because it's been proved to be the most stable and fastest version ever. But you're encouraged to change this, flex people have left some basic instructions, see the first link I mentioned above.

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. I'd like that language MyPersonalFckinLang implemented it. Everything in this discussion is motivated by Java does this or C++ or C# or Python does that. One package is a specific implementation of namespace which, unhappilly was incorporated by Java. One package ***IS*** a namespace, but applies restrictions. WTF? Yes, look at PHP... it's a kind of namespace implementation (ah packages too), and apply restrictions (one package per file) (ah, packages too, but namespaces allow more than one per file). For your announcement, "PHP has namespace support provided by packages." I am not the bad guy in this entire history, and I hope we can drink a dozen bottles of beer =) together in the future, but PLEASE don't frustrate PHP users by providing them a basic functionality of what you have announced. The filescope is another workaround for namespace implementation. One namespace local import should work in the entire namespace, not only in the file it was imported. AGAIN, here are the list of changes that will make everyone accept namespace as the keyword: - Remove the restriction to one package/namespace per file - Use curly braces to define one namespace - Allow nested definitions namespace N1 { namespace SubN1 { ... } namespace Sub2N1 { ... } } - using/import is related to the namespace/package/whatever scope. If you say these functionalities will be implemented (ok, maybe in PHP6.1 or 6.X), I'd change my vote and I'll fight in the namespaces side. I think not only me, but everyone that is currently suggesting to rename it to packages. I can even try to help in the development of them, but I'll need some help to understand the background of ZE. Sara's book will arrive at home in 4-6 weeks. Regards, On 8/17/07, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote: > David, > > Most people don't know wtf you are referring to by "package", but > nearly everyone knows the concept of namespaces. Packages is name for > an implementation of namespaces, calling it packages just because > 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 <ilia@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 Schlüter <johannes@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 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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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=ZEND002498&r=213474731 > >>> "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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > David Coallier, > > Founder & Software Architect, > > Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com) > > 51.42.06.70.18 > > Ilia Alshanetsky > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil