Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
Wikipedia also define the term MVC. But alas, that is a conceptual
definition, not blueprints for implementation.
Who cares about the implementation? It's still MVC. So let's implement
MVC and call it "distributed enterprise messaging" and then let's spend
next 2 years explaining that it was really MVC that we meant.
My point is simply that there is a different between the concept and
someones interpretation of the concept that influences an actual
implementation. MVC, although overly used in these web 2.1-rc4 days, is
not a product, or even an implementation.. Its a pattern for development
and a concept. ZF-MVC is an implementation of this pattern, as is
Symfony, as is RoR, as is Django.
I use the concept of Namespaces to build a more OO friendly session
object for Zend_Session. Which is why we have a class called
Zend_Session_Namespace. Point being, its an implementation of the
namespace concept within an implementation of a component in the Zend
Framework.
namespaces and packages. But the general taste this will leave in
peoples mouthes is package, even if it is a Grapple.
I am still waiting to know what is package? I know what is namespace -
and I for everybody that doesn't know I can explain it in 2 minutes with
one hand tied behind my back. But what is "package"?
PACKAGES ARE a namespace implementation with file/directory/and or other
filesystem restrictions.
I would go out on a limb and say that if you surveyed a large majority
of languages and developers, that statement above would fit most peoples
perception of "what a package is".
current implementation doesn't have braces; this (consequently) adds a
Ouch, not braces again. What is it with braces that you need them so
badly? Many languages aren't using the things ever, isn't it a proof
that there's life outside braces? ;)
Its not a point of needing them so badly. The point is what the lack of
braces implies within the language itself. Instead of namespace scope
ending at a brace, its now ending at the end OF A FILE; hence
introducing a FILESYSTEM restriction.
Questions: can I run an interactive php shell and define a few
namespaces and classes to use in a runtime environment? Say, using,
PHP_Shell in pear?
Can I have more than one namespace in a single file?
library "packages". Point in case is how the ZF has used a
pesudo-namespace-ing class name to accomplish the very same thing.
ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because
there's no choice to do otherwise. That's why we wrote namespaces - to
provide this choice.
True, but we are also talking about library components that are
regulated by some coding standards, specifically, the one class per file
requirement. This itself is not a PHP thing, its a ZF-Coding Standards
thing. Using package implies a "one namespaced package per file rule"
whereas the simple term of "namespace" does not (at least to me).
+1 on package, it makes the most sense regardless of the marketing
draw of "namespace" support.
Please re-read my mail on perception. "Marketing" here is just a way to
say "perception" so it sounds bad to some people for some reason.
Well, you talked about sending out the press release about "PHP has
namespace support!".. and that is pure marketing ;)
But I agree with you in that the long term goal is about developer
perception, and thats why its important to have this decided.
-ralph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
