Hello, Before you vote, I suggest you read my RFC as to why this is coming up > again: > http://framework.zend.com/**wiki/x/jQHbAQ<http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/jQHbAQ>any > try to understand the issues that the current scheme have brought to > the forefront. I'd also suggest that if you're a casual observer of ZF2, > seek out any of the individuals inside #zftalk.2 on freenode to gain a bit > of insight and perspective - one way or the other. > > and, THE POLL URL: > http://framework.zend.com/**wiki/x/bQDKAg<http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/bQDKAg> > > I figured a discussion on this would still be warranted:
For instance; I am having some issues understanding some of the votes. My main concern is ultimately consistency in the naming of itself and there seems like there might be an option missing as well. From my point of view having an AbstractClient and then a ClientInterface does not make a ton of sense (other than they read better when sounding them out). Either they should all be prefixed or all be suffixed. Having a mix of the two just complicates things and does not add to a specific linguistic pattern. I also believe an option is missing for traits to follow the AClient, IClient and there should be a TClient. Basically I feel like any pattern should be followed as if it should be a suffix or a prefix and would just like to understand others point of view regarding the naming convention. A great thing about doing this is within file searching by pattern; you could now do a "^(A|I|T)[A-Z]" for a regular expression or replacing the A|I|T with Abstract|Interface|Trait. Not doing this also feels a bit like haystack needle or needle haystack. :) Regards, Mike
