> > In theory, I like the idea of a unified set of XML helper extensions, > > but DOM's so big and ugly that I don't know if it plays well with > > others in the sandbox. > > We are not consistent! Not in any way. DOM uses studlyCaps and SimpleXML > uses underscores for its method names. Speaking of consistency we should > probably discuss whether we want to change all methods of SimpleXML to > studlyCaps (we cannot hcnage the DOM method names). Until RC1 i guess we > can do such changes if we all agree and see it to be important. >
Haven't you been reading the thread - there are no more methods! :)
Sterling,
I actually think it's nice and easy to have some of SimpleXML's methods. Maybe there is some redundancy and it might be an OK idea to make sure we got them right, but I definitely think we should keep them.
Also, it's great you've finally woken up, but it's a bit late in the game to be doing so. We are in a feature freeze now so that we can get RC1 out of the door hopefully by the end of the month, and it just doesn't make sense to redesign the whole thing now.
A lot of people have done some great work on your initial idea, including the write support which I think was a must. What we have today is extremely useable and I think if there are any important last minute fixes/improvements that need to be made we should go ahead with them, but they should be made after consulting w/ people and I definitely wouldn't want to see something drastic such as removing methods. I think the fact that you have the methods defined on the SimpleXML objects is great. That's the essence of OOP and if you like it or not, SimpleXML is an OOP extension.
So after all this ranting what I really think we should be discussing is if there are any *crucial* things which need changing or fixing without redesigning the whole thing.
Andi
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
