Hi, You all think that mapping something can always be abstracted into a few lines like the one you presented. Well, in certain cases your idea is valid. I'd then point you an Entity mapping of Doctrine 2 with and without Annotations, so you can imagine how much it can abstract:
With Doctrine Annotations: http://pastie.org/1885284 With my proposal: http://pastie.org/1885294 Without Annotations: http://pastie.org/1885252 Is that still simple? Regarding usability, I thought that it is not "it must be used by 10,000k people to be relevant". I think the best thing that can prove that is "goto". I didn't see a lot of people requesting for it, but it was still included. Let me ask you then: if it wasn't widely requested (considering your argument that only massive requests should be relevant), why was it included? Regarding BC, IDEs, etc... Traits also includes new keywords and none complained about "IDE won't support immediately". Should I consider then that your arguments that you are strongly forcing to be valid on this subject should also be strong on traits? If yes, why traits was included? Regarding readability, traits and annotations follow a similar path. Everything that annotations can do, with much more work PHP can do too. The same applies to traits. So again I ask: if with PHP is possible to do the same things that traits included, why was it included? I'm not putting traits support inclusion on risk. I'm a string +1 to it. All I want is that you stop giving stupid arguments to be against the patch instead of giving *real* relevant arguments. Regards, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Lars Schultz <lars.schu...@toolpark.com> wrote: > Am 10.05.2011 14:47, schrieb Martin Scotta: >> >> Annotated code integrates best with library/frameworks without the need to >> "extends" or "implements". >> Without annotation you will need to extend some class or to implement some >> interface. That means more code to write, more chances to shoot you foot. > > Umm. Is there any way with the Annotation-proposal to validate a class to > have all the necessary annotations to work with a certain framework? Is > there an annotation-Schema or DTD which I can apply against my classes and > validate them? Because that's what you get when using interfaces. Which > means less "shooting in the foot". > > As for writing less code...If there is any shared code, we now have > traits!;) hurray! > >> With annotation your classes are unaware of the other components, which >> implies: >> * shorter, concise code => less bugs >> * no extra dependencies => easy to test >> >> class UserFoo extends LibraryFoo { } > > I can see that extending does not really work when using frameworks. But > when using interfaces and traits in conjunction, this is not necessary > anymore. > >> class UserBar implements LibraryBar { >> // even worst you will need to write some methods here >> } > > I don't get what the problem with writing methods is. They are readable by > any PHP5 developer and you get all kind of support in writing them. > >> With annotations classes are "free" to live on you own herarchy > > The same holds true for interfaces. > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- Guilherme Blanco Mobile: +55 (16) 9215-8480 MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com São Paulo - SP/Brazil -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
