Sent from my iPhone On 23 Apr 2024, at 18:21, Lynn <kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2024 14:00, Saki Takamachi wrote:
> Hi internals,
>
> Recently I've been working on an RFC regarding object support for BCMath. While working on that, I learned of the following RFC:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namespaces_in_bundled_extensions
>
> If we follow this RFC, is it reasonable to place subclasses of PDO under the namespace "PDO”?
>
> e.g.
> ```
> PdoMysql => PDO\Mysql
> PdoPgsql => PDO\Pgsql
> PdoSqlite => PDO\Sqlite
> PdoOdbc => PDO\Odbc
> PdoDblib => PDO\Dblib
> PdoFirebird => PDO\Firebird
> ```
>
> We'll probably get a BC Break if try to fix this after 8.4 is released, so before it's released is last chance to fix this safely.
>
> If Tim's RFC under discussion is passed, the namespace will be "Pdo" instead of "PDO”.
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/class-naming-acronyms
>
> I would appreciate hearing your opinions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saki
Hi Saki,
Consider that adding a namespace does not/should not change the class
name. That is, `MyClass` once namespaced becomes `MyNamespace\MyClass`.
Ergo, `PdoMysql` becomes `Pdo\PdoMysql`. The class name should still
make sense and be a "strong name" (without conflict) once imported.
To state it more concretely, I believe it is normal and correct to
include 1-3 namespace components within the class name itself, in order
to create such a "strong name". As a more concrete example of this,
consider `HttpClient`, `FtpClient` and `SoapClient`. Far too often, we
see user libraries (incorrectly) namespace these as `Http\Client`,
`Ftp\Client` and `Soap\Client` (or similar) where the leaf name just
becomes `Client`. "Client", by itself is a meaningless moniker, but that
is all we see once the name is imported, notwithstanding importing
multiple of these clients in one file causes conflicts that now need to
be resolved with local aliases. In general, I believe aliasing to be an
anti-pattern that points to a failure to create strong names and thus
should be avoided by including some of the namespace portion in the
class name to make the class name more meaningful. Once imported, we do
not see the namespace portion within the body of the file any more;
`HttpClient` and `FtpClient` make much more sense by themselves, whether
or not they would otherwise conflict.
Kind regards,
Bilge
The code base I work in has 25 classes that are called "Line". They have namespaces like `App\Model\Invoice\Line`, this is cumbersome to work with so I would also prefer something like `Pdo\PdoMysql`, even if it's not likely to conflict with a name such as Mysql.
I don't think it's appropriate to claim that a namespace like MyLib\HTTP\Client is categorically "wrong".
The argument that "Client" is meaningless becomes pretty moot when you realise that you can import a *namespace* and use it relatively, if you so wish:
``` import MyLib\HTTP;
$a = new HTTP\Client(...); ```
I'm not claiming that any particular import pattern is more "correct" (and I think it's a bad idea to suggest that other usage patterns are "incorrect") but adding repetitive prefixes kind of defeats the purpose of namespaces.
You may as well just go back to MyLib_HTTP_Client, and ignore that namespaces exist. |
