Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On Wed, August 15, 2007 7:04 pm, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: While I still think it smells more like package than namespace I'm changing my vote to just call it namespace and be done with it. If we really feel the need to add braces support later, we can. Who knows, maybe even the file-based restriction may disappear at some point. We might even be allowed to import a whole namespace to global and maybe even have the chance to override a name or two in the process, which would be my personal ideal, since all I really want out of a namespace is a way to resolve the few conflicts there are, rather than a rigorous total separation of every space. If everybody has been clamouring for namespaces and what we are delivering is arguably a namespace implementation, then so be it, and it is better marketing, and that's not evil so long as we're not lying. For sure, though, this thread has reach the beating a dead horse stage some time ago... -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had nestng and wasnt't bound to files. For what it worth, I think there's a link between nesting and not working :) Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the very hard limitations we have in the current implementations. And another thing. Sure, because it describes *concept*, not *implementation*. Concept is - instead of one big flat space of names, we now have multiple spaces which we can use separately. That's it, very simple. Now how exactly these spaces relate and how they work together and what keywords are used - is implementation. Why the hell would we want to implement packages and namespaces? Packages or We have packages - see PHAR. Note it didn't help us with namespaces ;) With the risk of having my head chopped off :), I would like to ask you what you think about *modules*? It's not a package (no problem PHAR). It's not a namespace - no braces. Just a thought... The main thing is to have the feature up and working - later we can call it *cow* :), as soon as everyone knows what we are talking about... Regards, Emil Ivanov -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
We might even be allowed to import a whole namespace to global and I doubt it's a good idea. Aside from obvious concern of global space pollution, there are performance concerns - global imports are very hard to resolve at compile-time and they are quite hostile to bytecode-caches (since they make files substantially depend on contents of other unknown files). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
I've been reading this lengthy discussion and here's a sumup of what I found: - PHP's implementation is only a part of what most people expect to find when they hear php has namespace support - PHP's implementation looks a bit like JAVA's package support, and a bit like many other (differently names) features in other languages. It however does not match 1:1 to any of those. So, everyone here has agreed already that namespaces !=== PHP's implementation (it might ==, but not ===). Same goes for Package. I find the idea of Greg to be very good though, reading the original proposal, it often names things not namespace but simply prefix. What do you do with your names? you use a prefix, you don't expect it to have full namespace support just like [insert any other language here], nor do you expect it to be exactly like a JAVA package. When announced, you could simply state PHP now has support for prefixing, PHP's own specific implementation of namespaces. Because that's what you have, you can complain that according to the definition of [word] it _is_ that., but you can't really. The definition of a word like namespace, package, etc. is not independent of its implementation in majorly used languages unfortunately. If you ask a random coder what is a namespace, the answer will always be based on an implementation in a language the person uses/likes a lot. You can quote from wikipedia, but that doesn't really mean anything (sorry Stas), what we should try to do here is find the proper name which identifies the implementation we have for what it is. prefix Foo; alias Foo:Bar as Quux; Looks very good to me as it clearly shows what happens, internally and externally. It's not a namespace as such, it's not a package as such, it's simply what PHP _does_. I hope this will help the discussion steer away from the standard arguments that have been used constantly, and that will simply not change. - Tul Gregory Beaver wrote: Hi, All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think namespace is a fine choice for the reserved word, and package is a dangerously misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an alternative proposal I'd like to float: How about using the keyword prefix or nameprefix instead of namespace? This will be clearer and can be easily defined with 2 sentences similar to the original proposal: All class and function names inside the file are automatically prefixed with the (prefix|nameprefix) name. In other files, classes and functions can be imported with different names (aliases) to eliminate naming conflicts or reduce typing needed. I quote from the original Simple Namespace Proposal message by Dmitry: From the beginning: Main assumption of the model is that the problem that we are to solve is the problem of the very long class names in PHP libraries. We would not attempt to take autoloader's job or create packaging model - only make names manageable. From the middle: Namespace definition does the following: All class and function names inside are automatically prefixed with namespace name. As stated, because this proposal *only* defines a prefix for functions and class names, it is not a packaging model. All package models in existence define some kind of self-contained entity that groups related *files* and their contents together in a way that allows them to be packaged into a single thing, like a jar, a PEAR .tgz, or a .phar file. This proposal does none of these things. Simply because the prefix is defined per-file does not a package make. By the same logic, using .php at the end of a file or .dat at the end of a file creates special packages of php or dat information, because the extension applies to the whole file at once. Simply defining the contents of a file does not imply any organization whatsoever. What the original proposal *does* do is provide a namespace prefix - it defines a scope within which all names have a special prefix. This is not rocket science. rantOn a personal note, if you feel you must reply to this thread further, please follow this checklist: 1) is anything I am saying bring a new idea to the debate? 2) is there a patch that converts my new idea into a reality attached to the message? If you can't answer yes to either of these, please go immediately to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200./rant Thank you to Dmitry for this much-needed idea. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hi, Has anyone thought of the keyword phpspace? 2007/8/17, M. Sokolewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've been reading this lengthy discussion and here's a sumup of what I found: - PHP's implementation is only a part of what most people expect to find when they hear php has namespace support - PHP's implementation looks a bit like JAVA's package support, and a bit like many other (differently names) features in other languages. It however does not match 1:1 to any of those. So, everyone here has agreed already that namespaces !=== PHP's implementation (it might ==, but not ===). Same goes for Package. I find the idea of Greg to be very good though, reading the original proposal, it often names things not namespace but simply prefix. What do you do with your names? you use a prefix, you don't expect it to have full namespace support just like [insert any other language here], nor do you expect it to be exactly like a JAVA package. When announced, you could simply state PHP now has support for prefixing, PHP's own specific implementation of namespaces. Because that's what you have, you can complain that according to the definition of [word] it _is_ that., but you can't really. The definition of a word like namespace, package, etc. is not independent of its implementation in majorly used languages unfortunately. If you ask a random coder what is a namespace, the answer will always be based on an implementation in a language the person uses/likes a lot. You can quote from wikipedia, but that doesn't really mean anything (sorry Stas), what we should try to do here is find the proper name which identifies the implementation we have for what it is. prefix Foo; alias Foo:Bar as Quux; Looks very good to me as it clearly shows what happens, internally and externally. It's not a namespace as such, it's not a package as such, it's simply what PHP _does_. I hope this will help the discussion steer away from the standard arguments that have been used constantly, and that will simply not change. - Tul Gregory Beaver wrote: Hi, All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think namespace is a fine choice for the reserved word, and package is a dangerously misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an alternative proposal I'd like to float: How about using the keyword prefix or nameprefix instead of namespace? This will be clearer and can be easily defined with 2 sentences similar to the original proposal: All class and function names inside the file are automatically prefixed with the (prefix|nameprefix) name. In other files, classes and functions can be imported with different names (aliases) to eliminate naming conflicts or reduce typing needed. I quote from the original Simple Namespace Proposal message by Dmitry: From the beginning: Main assumption of the model is that the problem that we are to solve is the problem of the very long class names in PHP libraries. We would not attempt to take autoloader's job or create packaging model - only make names manageable. From the middle: Namespace definition does the following: All class and function names inside are automatically prefixed with namespace name. As stated, because this proposal *only* defines a prefix for functions and class names, it is not a packaging model. All package models in existence define some kind of self-contained entity that groups related *files* and their contents together in a way that allows them to be packaged into a single thing, like a jar, a PEAR .tgz, or a .phar file. This proposal does none of these things. Simply because the prefix is defined per-file does not a package make. By the same logic, using .php at the end of a file or .dat at the end of a file creates special packages of php or dat information, because the extension applies to the whole file at once. Simply defining the contents of a file does not imply any organization whatsoever. What the original proposal *does* do is provide a namespace prefix - it defines a scope within which all names have a special prefix. This is not rocket science. rantOn a personal note, if you feel you must reply to this thread further, please follow this checklist: 1) is anything I am saying bring a new idea to the debate? 2) is there a patch that converts my new idea into a reality attached to the message? If you can't answer yes to either of these, please go immediately to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200./rant Thank you to Dmitry for this much-needed idea. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Best regards, Jingcheng Zhang Room 304, Dormitory 26 of Yuquan Campus, Zhejiang University P.R.China
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
prefix Foo; alias Foo:Bar as Quux; If namespaces have to be renamed, then IMHO this proposal is the best so far. alias would also remove confusion from statement like ``import Foo`` because ``alias Foo`` is clearly no-op per se. At least to me ;-) Regards, Giedrius -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it resembles more of a package or less? http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html I wonder why everybody here talks about one and only one language - Java... It's not like programming languages begin and end with Java, is it? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb: I wonder why everybody here talks about one and only one language - Java. Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the most with the programming language feature in question. -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the most with the programming language feature in question. So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb: So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages. You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language. I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java. That's all :) -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Java just happens to be the programming language that I associate the most with the programming language feature in question. So for you packages == Java packages. Great, since PHP does not have Java packages, problem solved, it's not packages. So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces. ;-) Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces. I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at all. When I asked what is the package, I got description of particular syntax in Java. Feel the difference? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
You asked for a specification of packages in a programming language. I just pointed you to the specification of packages in Java. Yes, I know Java implements packages this way. And Perl implements them other way. And C yet another way. And PHP has at least three packaging implementations which have nothing to do with namespacing and a bunch of proposals in addition to it. That's the whole point - package doesn't describe any specific concept, unless you talk about specific language or specific functionality - like rpm or jar, which are packages too. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have C namespaces, problem solved, it's not namespaces. I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at all. When I asked what is the package, I got description of particular syntax in Java. Feel the difference? Yes, I feel the difference ;-) But, the description os namespaces you gave is not exactly what is implemented in PHP, it might come close. So PHP does also not have namespaces... neither has it packages, so I would say that it's something unique, and needs an unique name.. Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/16/07, Sebastian Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html Thinking on 'packages' further I think that part of my objection to use of the term for PHP is that Java provides built-in packages (java.io etc etc) while PHP doesn't/will not for this release. Announcing that PHP has package support yet not bundling any actual packages seems a misnomer. -- Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Here we come again =\
So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
C packages, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at
all. When I asked what is the package, I got description of particular
syntax in Java. Feel the difference?
Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
related to package Java, namespace C, def, zendspace of whatever.
The following itens ARE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES between namespaces and packages.
I already highlighted you which structural changes will change my vote
from one to another, and I'll publish it again... maybe you forget to
read it.
- Remove the restriction to one package/namespace per file
- Use curly braces to define one namespace
- Allow nested definitions namespace N1 { namespace SubN1 { ... }
namespace Sub2N1 { ... } }
- using/import is related to the namespace/package/whatever scope.
This is one of the explanations to use curly braces in namespaces (and
not in packages). You tell me 'namespace' are unique. I agree, but
3rdparty libraries using the name namespace alias will still mess the
entire application. So let's follow bjori (IRC) idea and create the
filescope!
If you need more information about WHY I added this item, read my
previous email.
Once you incorporate these changes (and not only curly braces as you
said on a previous email), I'll change my vote from package to
namespace.
So for you namespaces == C namespaces. Great, since PHP does not have
C namespaces, problem solved, it's not namespaces.
I gave you description of namespaces which clearly states what namespace
is, and has nothing to do with C or any specific programming language at
all. When I asked what is the package, I got description of particular
syntax in Java. Feel the difference?
Yes, I feel the difference ;-) But, the description os namespaces you
gave is not exactly what is implemented in PHP, it might come close.
So PHP does also not have namespaces... neither has it packages, so I
would say that it's something unique, and needs an unique name..
*dreaming* zendspace =)
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
Thinking on 'packages' further I think that part of my objection to
use of the term for PHP is that Java provides built-in packages
(java.io etc etc) while PHP doesn't/will not for this release.
Announcing that PHP has package support yet not bundling any actual
packages seems a misnomer.
I do not agree. PHP always lived with a bunch of libraries (MySQL,
XML, etc) and the fact that it uses or not uses the newly added
feature is not a misnomer. Otherwise we'll move from PHP as a
structural/oo language to a frameworked language like C# or Java, that
you have to do:
$db = new PHP::Sql::PDO::Connection(); // creates PDOConnection object
...
The fact of added/rename a feature has nothing related to that
language support built-in packages/namespaces or not.
If you think you're still right with your assertion, once PHP
incorporates namespace then (following the opposite of your idea), and
not bundling built-in namespaces are misnomer too (C# supports
namespaces and has thousdands). See that what you said is irrelevant?
=)
On 8/16/07, Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/16/07, Sebastian Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html
Thinking on 'packages' further I think that part of my objection to
use of the term for PHP is that Java provides built-in packages
(java.io etc etc) while PHP doesn't/will not for this release.
Announcing that PHP has package support yet not bundling any actual
packages seems a misnomer.
--
Marc Gear
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Regards,
--
Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer
CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant
Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://blog.bisna.com
São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hi, All of the debate over whether this is a true namespace implementation is in my opinion completely bogus (translate: I think namespace is a fine choice for the reserved word, and package is a dangerously misleading choice), but since there is so much noisy dissent, I have an alternative proposal I'd like to float: How about using the keyword prefix or nameprefix instead of namespace? This will be clearer and can be easily defined with 2 sentences similar to the original proposal: All class and function names inside the file are automatically prefixed with the (prefix|nameprefix) name. In other files, classes and functions can be imported with different names (aliases) to eliminate naming conflicts or reduce typing needed. I quote from the original Simple Namespace Proposal message by Dmitry: From the beginning: Main assumption of the model is that the problem that we are to solve is the problem of the very long class names in PHP libraries. We would not attempt to take autoloader's job or create packaging model - only make names manageable. From the middle: Namespace definition does the following: All class and function names inside are automatically prefixed with namespace name. As stated, because this proposal *only* defines a prefix for functions and class names, it is not a packaging model. All package models in existence define some kind of self-contained entity that groups related *files* and their contents together in a way that allows them to be packaged into a single thing, like a jar, a PEAR .tgz, or a .phar file. This proposal does none of these things. Simply because the prefix is defined per-file does not a package make. By the same logic, using .php at the end of a file or .dat at the end of a file creates special packages of php or dat information, because the extension applies to the whole file at once. Simply defining the contents of a file does not imply any organization whatsoever. What the original proposal *does* do is provide a namespace prefix - it defines a scope within which all names have a special prefix. This is not rocket science. rantOn a personal note, if you feel you must reply to this thread further, please follow this checklist: 1) is anything I am saying bring a new idea to the debate? 2) is there a patch that converts my new idea into a reality attached to the message? If you can't answer yes to either of these, please go immediately to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200./rant Thank you to Dmitry for this much-needed idea. Thanks, Greg -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
related to package Java, namespace C, def, zendspace of whatever.
That's what I am trying to explain for a week now and still failing.
Namespace as a concept is not the same as implementation of namespaces
in C++ or Java. Packages as a concept is not the same as implementation
of packages in Java, Perl, C or PHP. PHP is neither C++ not Java.
Choosing which language to mimic - Java or C++ - is not the right way to
think about the problem. PHP is separate language, not C++ or Java. Just
because C++ has + and PHP has + doesn't mean PHP should have operator
overloading. Just because PHP has multi-component names and Java has
multi-component names doesn't mean namespace definition operator should
be the same keyword. That's what I'm trying to explain - the choice is
not should we be like C++ or like Java. We may end up being like it -
or not, but it is not the choice we have.
- Allow nested definitions namespace N1 { namespace SubN1 { ... }
namespace Sub2N1 { ... } }
That most probably won't happen ever. If you want to know why, look up
the nested class saga. In short - too much trouble to implement
consistently, too bad runtime performance (unlimited lookup depth at
runtime).
not in packages). You tell me 'namespace' are unique. I agree, but
3rdparty libraries using the name namespace alias will still mess the
entire application. So let's follow bjori (IRC) idea and create the
filescope!
I'm afraid I don't understand - what would filescope do?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/16/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read the purpose of both, which restrictions/limitations both have,
how are they defined, how are they used, etc and you'll see if the
current implementation is more like 'namespace' or 'package'. It's not
related to package Java, namespace C, def, zendspace of whatever.
That's what I am trying to explain for a week now and still failing.
Namespace as a concept is not the same as implementation of namespaces
in C++ or Java. Packages as a concept is not the same as implementation
of packages in Java, Perl, C or PHP. PHP is neither C++ not Java.
Choosing which language to mimic - Java or C++ - is not the right way to
think about the problem. PHP is separate language, not C++ or Java. Just
because C++ has + and PHP has + doesn't mean PHP should have operator
overloading. Just because PHP has multi-component names and Java has
multi-component names doesn't mean namespace definition operator should
be the same keyword. That's what I'm trying to explain - the choice is
not should we be like C++ or like Java. We may end up being like it -
or not, but it is not the choice we have.
That's why I purposed the unique name. Also it follows the Gregory not
so likely email.
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch
and convert it to zendspace, just tell me.
- Allow nested definitions namespace N1 { namespace SubN1 { ... }
namespace Sub2N1 { ... } }
That most probably won't happen ever. If you want to know why, look up
the nested class saga. In short - too much trouble to implement
consistently, too bad runtime performance (unlimited lookup depth at
runtime).
That's what I imagine it happens, otherwise that was no reason to not
allow more than one namespace/package per file.
not in packages). You tell me 'namespace' are unique. I agree, but
3rdparty libraries using the name namespace alias will still mess the
entire application. So let's follow bjori (IRC) idea and create the
filescope!
I'm afraid I don't understand - what would filescope do?
The reason to something like that is when you do:
import Foo::Bar as MyBar;
$c = new MyBar::NestedClass();
This can still cause a conflict.
Let me try to illustrate with a real world example (but hypotetical).
I use Zend Framework and at the same time ADOdb. Both has its
namespaces/packages:
namespace/package/zendspace/whatever Zend::DB;
class Connection { ... }
namespace ADO::DB;
class Connection { ... }
Internally in the Zend framework (in a class definition, for exmaple),
it can use:
package Zend::Foo;
import Zend::DB as DB;
$c = new DB::Connection();
And internally in the ADO package:
namespace ADO::Bar;
import ADO::DB as DB;
$c = new DB::Connection();
What will happen in this situation?
The idea of file scope works like this:
If it's internal to a package/namespace, that alias is restricted to
THAT package/namespace. If it's not internal to any space, it's global
and can be used as expected.
I think my idea is better explained with an example:
File: ORM/Client.php
?php
namespace ORM
// Assign namespace in localscope (file scope, based on PHP implementation)
import System; // Contains Console class which controle I/O, like C#
class Client {
function __construct() {
Console::println( Client created! );
}
}
?
File: index.php
?php
// Console directly is unreachable, you must do this:
System::Console::println( Unreachable );
// Or import System again to allow it in global scope
import System;
Console::println( Reachable now! );
?
Do you understand the idea now? I can try to explain differently if needed.
Regards,
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer
CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant
Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://blog.bisna.com
São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch and convert it to zendspace, just tell me. So it goes like this: PHP Group: Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!. PHP users: WTF??? Internally in the Zend framework (in a class definition, for exmaple), it can use: package Zend::Foo; import Zend::DB as DB; $c = new DB::Connection(); And internally in the ADO package: namespace ADO::Bar; import ADO::DB as DB; $c = new DB::Connection(); What will happen in this situation? Exactly what you thought would happen - first one would resolve as Zend::DB::Connection and second one as ADO::DB::Connection. Only note is that you should write not import Zend::DB as DB but just import Zend::DB - it's prettier this way ;) If it's internal to a package/namespace, that alias is restricted to THAT package/namespace. If it's not internal to any space, it's global and can be used as expected. Import'ed alias is always restricted to the file it appeared in. // Assign namespace in localscope (file scope, based on PHP implementation) import System; // Contains Console class which controle I/O, like C# import Something isn't allowed. Sorry, I know it's not like C++ works, but I don't see any way to make it do anything meaningful without having the same global space pollution problem. Maybe we should rename import to using or something? Do you understand the idea now? I can try to explain differently if needed. From what I understand, it's exactly like it works now with only difference being that import Foo is not allowed since it's not doing anything. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stas, Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades in one form or another. People use the languages they are used to developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given that we have the benefit of seeing how other languages have attempted to solve the problem over the years, we can then devise our own implementation to satisfy the demand. We cannot ignore other languages implementations that got us to where we are today in language/compiler design. At the end of the day, there are two camps of people for naming: packages vs. namespaces. You seem to be missing the point that having braces is not for vanity's sake, and is truly important to the implementation thus lending itself to actual naming of the implementation. a) BY NOT HAVING BRACES you have subscribed to FILE BASED scope termination, thus tying the SCOPING of namespaces to a FILE. b) BY HAVING BRACES you would be subscribing to a model that terminates scope of namespace constructs to current scope they are defined within. The former lends itself to being called a package the later lends itself to being called a namespace. You did not answer my other questions on multiple namespaces per file, and interactive php namespace usage. -ralph Stanislav Malyshev wrote: OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an How consistent had acquired a meaning of doing it my way? There's nothing inconsistent in the name namespace and it is very consistent with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting for that non-C++ does it with braces argument btw. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hello Ralph, thanks for the very good explanation, but don't expect to get anything back it is the same arguemnt I tried already - Expectations based on experience from existing languages. Rather then reachign for the straw of non existing features in other languages. best regards marcus Thursday, August 16, 2007, 8:24:10 PM, you wrote: Stas, Namespace implementations for languages have been around for decades in one form or another. People use the languages they are used to developing in to demonstrate their points on how it should work, and what it should be called when it works a certain way. Its 2007. Given that we have the benefit of seeing how other languages have attempted to solve the problem over the years, we can then devise our own implementation to satisfy the demand. We cannot ignore other languages implementations that got us to where we are today in language/compiler design. At the end of the day, there are two camps of people for naming: packages vs. namespaces. You seem to be missing the point that having braces is not for vanity's sake, and is truly important to the implementation thus lending itself to actual naming of the implementation. a) BY NOT HAVING BRACES you have subscribed to FILE BASED scope termination, thus tying the SCOPING of namespaces to a FILE. b) BY HAVING BRACES you would be subscribing to a model that terminates scope of namespace constructs to current scope they are defined within. The former lends itself to being called a package the later lends itself to being called a namespace. You did not answer my other questions on multiple namespaces per file, and interactive php namespace usage. -ralph Stanislav Malyshev wrote: OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an How consistent had acquired a meaning of doing it my way? There's nothing inconsistent in the name namespace and it is very consistent with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting for that non-C++ does it with braces argument btw. Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hello Stanislav, what the hell are you talking about? We had a namespace implementation and now we have a new one. One that for a lot of people here smells like packages. There are no three or more different ones. None of them was ever accepted or comitted. Actually I doubt that any of them was ever working. And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had nestng and wasnt't bound to files. Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the very hard limitations we have in the current implementations. And another thing. Why the hell would we want to implement packages and namespaces? Packages or namespaces as we have them right now are clearly a subset of the both the wiki and what people usually expect from namespaces. marcus Thursday, August 16, 2007, 2:04:01 AM, you wrote: This leaves the Namespace name available for future development if/as Which means we officially declare PHP *doesn't* have namespaces (since we reserve the right to develop it in the future, it's obvious we didn't do it yet). Why it would be a good thing? needed (such as if the language were to show itself to need more than one namespace per file (or whatever the future may hold)). So if we add braces we'd have to rename the keyword? It can still be touted that PHP has namespace support regardless of Yes, we'd have to say we have namespace support but we call it packages and when people ask why? we'd answer well, because Java calls it so and people would say ah, so when you were saying PHP is not Java - *that's* what you meant! -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
So going with existing expectation is good or bad? Having our implementation match some existing one because the solution is right for both - good. Imitating existing implementation just because it exists in some other language - bad (not always, but in this case). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
And oh the original implementation did not work either. And hey it had nestng and wasnt't bound to files. For what it worth, I think there's a link between nesting and not working :) Oh and speaking of your wiki again. Your wiki does not list any of the very hard limitations we have in the current implementations. And another thing. Sure, because it describes *concept*, not *implementation*. Concept is - instead of one big flat space of names, we now have multiple spaces which we can use separately. That's it, very simple. Now how exactly these spaces relate and how they work together and what keywords are used - is implementation. Why the hell would we want to implement packages and namespaces? Packages or We have packages - see PHAR. Note it didn't help us with namespaces ;) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
PHP users: Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the braces? That's like saying BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats! PHP users: These act more like... Java packages. Why are they called namespaces? Java packages are namespace implementation, btw. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1148, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: You can use zendspace. (Gregory) If you want me to get Johannes patch and convert it to zendspace, just tell me. So it goes like this: PHP Group: Good news everyone! PHP now has zendspaces!. PHP users: WTF??? PHP Group: It's like a namespace -- but, you know, the PHP way. PHP users: Awesome! Alternately: PHP Group: Good news everyone! PHP now has namespaces!. PHP users: Awesome! PHP users: Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the braces? PHP users: These act more like... Java packages. Why are they called namespaces? I would suggest that the world at large will react in the same fashion as this list. Using a name already in use by the most popular programming language in the world is going to create the expectation that the feature works in the same way. Using a different name will not create that false expectation, nor the subsequent confusion. My $0.02 scott. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: PHP users: Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the braces? That's like saying BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats! That doesn't change the fact that that was the very reaction of this list. PHP users: These act more like... Java packages. Why are they called namespaces? Java packages are namespace implementation, btw. Indeed, I am not arguing that. Recognizing that their implementation was different than the C++ feature, the Java folks chose a different name. Because they knew that if they put out a feature with the same name as a C++ feature, people would assume it works the same way as the C++ feature. I would prefer that PHP's namespace feature not be overshadowed by confusion caused by it's keyword. scott. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 17:51 -0600, scott lewis wrote: On 16 Aug, 2007, at 1737, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: PHP users: Wait.. WTF? These don't act like namespaces - where are the braces? That's like saying BMW Z4 is not a car - it has only two seats! That doesn't change the fact that that was the very reaction of this list. STOP THE PRESSES!!! I've got it... we can call them... *dun dun dun* namespayces PHP Group: Good news all! PHP now has namespayces!!! PHP users: WTF??! PHP Group: it's like a namespace but without some of the functionality. PHP users: WTF! PHP Group: shudup, it sounds better than neuterspaces or zendspaces! PHP users: LYNCH! LYNCH!! Richard Lynch: Don't look at me!! Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
FWIW I am for namespaces because: - the functionality mentioned most often as missing in PHP is 'namespaces'. People want 'namespaces' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP#Criticism) - What they really want is no more clashing classes/functions/variables when they integrate third party apps (which the patch provides) - What they also want is no more clashing objects/functions when a new PHP extension becomes installed by default (Date anyone?) (which the patch provides) - PHP convention is one class-per-file, ergo, following convention would mean braces are not required anyway. - Dmitri gets the kudos for introducing PHPs most asked for feature, instead of 'packages' which no one has asked for. - The patch introduces naming spaces. at a per-file level. - Packages suggests a connection between folder structure and file contents of which there is none. Purely from a PR point of view, 'namespaces' is going to be a winner amongst users and 90% of people will wish for a braces implementation, while 'packages' is likely to generate more demands for something called 'namespaces' -- Marc Gear -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Marc, This is not the right reason for naming it namespace. Example: Say I am writing a new language. I want to introduce something similar to functions. But since OO is popular and sounds nice.. why not call it method on an object? People are asking for objects.. I'll just give them objects. It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. If it resembles more of a package, let's call it package (as it does currently, namespace should be nested.. but that's my opinion). Regards, Olivier On 8/15/07, Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW I am for namespaces because: - the functionality mentioned most often as missing in PHP is 'namespaces'. People want 'namespaces' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP#Criticism) - What they really want is no more clashing classes/functions/variables when they integrate third party apps (which the patch provides) - What they also want is no more clashing objects/functions when a new PHP extension becomes installed by default (Date anyone?) (which the patch provides) - PHP convention is one class-per-file, ergo, following convention would mean braces are not required anyway. - Dmitri gets the kudos for introducing PHPs most asked for feature, instead of 'packages' which no one has asked for. - The patch introduces naming spaces. at a per-file level. - Packages suggests a connection between folder structure and file contents of which there is none. Purely from a PR point of view, 'namespaces' is going to be a winner amongst users and 90% of people will wish for a braces implementation, while 'packages' is likely to generate more demands for something called 'namespaces' -- Marc Gear -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Olivier Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. A package means a collection of related classes and thats not whats happening- it is a scoping level for a particular file. A namespace is a scope which groups related identifiers. Classes have their own namespaces, as do functions. This is adding a namespace to a file, rather than the whole file being executed in global scope (which is obviously what currently happens) -- Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. If it resembles more of a package, let's call it package (as it does Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it resembles more of a package or less? currently, namespace should be nested.. but that's my opinion). Namespace is a mechanism to create separate contexts (spaces) in which same names could co-exist without being confused with each other. Nothing says it should be hierarchical or have any specific properties like that. BTW, if you read about Java, even though the keyword used in Java is package, the functionality is often called namespace. Quoting Wikipedia again: In the Java programming language, the idea of a namespace is embodied in Java packages. and Unlike C++, namespaces in Java are not hierarchical. This is understandable - saying package does not invoke any specific concept, while namespace does. If we tell PHP now has packages it can mean anything. If we say PHP now has namespaces virtually everybody would instantly understand what we talk about. We could, of course, say PHP now has namespaces which are called packages - but wouldn't it sound, well, weird? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stan, Sorry to disappoint you, but your idea is wrong. If PHP team release in the news: PHP has namespace support! OR PHP has package support! Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not understand are the ones that had never worked with it and can work in the future (and will have enough time to know what a package is). Regards, On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not about the popularity of a word, but the meaning of it. If it resembles more of a package, let's call it package (as it does Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it resembles more of a package or less? currently, namespace should be nested.. but that's my opinion). Namespace is a mechanism to create separate contexts (spaces) in which same names could co-exist without being confused with each other. Nothing says it should be hierarchical or have any specific properties like that. BTW, if you read about Java, even though the keyword used in Java is package, the functionality is often called namespace. Quoting Wikipedia again: In the Java programming language, the idea of a namespace is embodied in Java packages. and Unlike C++, namespaces in Java are not hierarchical. This is understandable - saying package does not invoke any specific concept, while namespace does. If we tell PHP now has packages it can mean anything. If we say PHP now has namespaces virtually everybody would instantly understand what we talk about. We could, of course, say PHP now has namespaces which are called packages - but wouldn't it sound, well, weird? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
If PHP team release in the news: PHP has namespace support! OR PHP has package support! Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not I wouldn't. And that's not because I'm so dense, but because package could mean anything, from next generation autoloader (I myself proposed such concept a while ago, and others did too) to integrating PHAR support into core. understand are the ones that had never worked with it and can work in Or worked with different ones enough to understand that packages is used for a zillion of different things, while namespace is quite well-defined concept. I quoted the wikipedia a number of times, let me quote it once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_package A Java package is a mechanism for organizing Java classes into namespaces. Now let you find a quote which says A C++ namespace is a mechanism of organizing C++ code into packages. I bet you won't find it - because people explain un-obvious concepts in terms of more obvious ones, and namespace is more obvious than package. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev wrote: If PHP team release in the news: PHP has namespace support! OR PHP has package support! PHP has namespaced package support. Which, is what the implementation is. Or worked with different ones enough to understand that packages is used for a zillion of different things, while namespace is quite well-defined concept. I quoted the wikipedia a number of times, let me quote it once again: Wikipedia also define the term MVC. But alas, that is a conceptual definition, not blueprints for implementation. The fact of the matter is that when it comes down to implementation, some elements of what we have might fit into both the realm of namespaces and packages. But the general taste this will leave in peoples mouthes is package, even if it is a Grapple. C# is the most intuitive implementation of namespace I have seen to date. I vote +1 on moving in that direction. Unfortunately, the current implementation doesn't have braces; this (consequently) adds a FILE restriction into the namespace feature. The moment that FILE restriction was entered into the game, it started to taste, look, and feel more like a package paradigm, than a pure namespace paradigm. Also, considering that limitation placed into namespace, we can be sure that the most common usage senario for said feature will look like building library packages. Point in case is how the ZF has used a pesudo-namespace-ing class name to accomplish the very same thing. Ideally, we call this packages now, and implement the C# style namespaces in the future ;) But I am certain thats a statement/concept worth flaming. +1 on package, it makes the most sense regardless of the marketing draw of namespace support. -ralph -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
PHP has namespaced package support. Yep, that's what I was talking about. We have namespaces but we call it packages because Java does. Eek. 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. 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? 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? ;) 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. +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. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PHP has namespaced package support. Yep, that's what I was talking about. We have namespaces but we call it packages because Java does. Eek. Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like: http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage 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. 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? From Portuguese Brazilian Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package Translated to you One package is a group of classes and interfaces related. In computers' area, package is a general purpose mechanism to organize elements in groups. For example, a package java.io which holds all the classes, in Java programming language, that handles with data input/output. Advantages: Easy to find and use the classes; Prevent conflicts in respect to names (MY note: literal translation); access control; The programmers must group in packages the classes and interfaces correlated; The classes and platforms that make part of JAVA platform are members of various packages. To create a package, you can only put an interface and one class inside a package. 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? ;) Braces should only be used if you try to follow the scope idea I already mentioned. But this is part of namespace paradigm. 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. If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you to keep it as PHP is currently and just add namespace/package support with a serious implementation. +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. All you told until now in favor of namespaces are marketing related. Just read your previous messages. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because there's no choice to do otherwise. If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you to keep it as PHP is currently and just add namespace/package support with a serious implementation. Dont be absurd. All namespaces are is a way of avoiding having to use Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Names. Its why we have separate scope (namespaces) for functions and classes. -- Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
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
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because there's no choice to do otherwise. If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you to keep it as PHP is currently and just add namespace/package support with a serious implementation. Dont be absurd. All namespaces are is a way of avoiding having to use Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Names. Its why we have separate scope (namespaces) for functions and classes. I apologize. I wrote one thing imagining another one. My bad. =) -- Marc Gear [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? ;) Well.. My guess is that If current implementation had braces all this namespace/package thing wouldn't be even discussed now. Everyone would agree that it's namespace thing even if one must put all file contents inside braces for parser to be happy. However without braces current implementation looks like nothing else in PHP. This gives people a space to improvise and/or pushes to look for similarities of syntax in other languages and it seems that the closest match is Java with its packages even though the functionality is different. I don't want to start braces discussion again but may suggest consider adding them? Pros: - It would end this discussion - It would be good for FC. If there would be decided to allow more then one namespace per file in the future. - Syntax would be more consistent with existing constructs in the language (classes/functions/etc) To sum up I think we have namespaces functionality with syntax similar to Java packages. Now the question is do we want developers to: - use namespaces anr/or mimic packages functionality with namespace if they want to (+1 for namespace) OR - use package the way it shouldn't be to mimic simple namespaces if they don't like/want/need packages (+1 for package) Regards, Giedrius -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like: http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage Neither, actually. But it's not about should we imitate C# or Java. It's about what's best for PHP. My opinion is that for PHP would be best to have namespaces and not packages. From Portuguese Brazilian Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package Translated to you In English, it says: A software package is a bundle of one or several files that either are necessary for the execution of a computer program, or add features for a program already installed on the computer or network of computers. All you told until now in favor of namespaces are marketing related. Just read your previous messages. OK, let's see - what is marketing? If it's a set of efforts aimed at promoting better understanding and wider usage of PHP language than I don't see how it can be bad and how it is not important to consider. If it's an evil conspiracy of suit-wearing aliens to subvert PHP community to serve their evil alien purposes then I know nothing about it but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with what I do. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Guilherme Blanco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like: http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage Neither, actually. But it's not about should we imitate C# or Java. It's about what's best for PHP. My opinion is that for PHP would be best to have namespaces and not packages. From Portuguese Brazilian Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package Translated to you In English, it says: A software package is a bundle of one or several files that either are necessary for the execution of a computer program, or add features for a program already installed on the computer or network of computers. A software package is that beautiful box you go to the supermarket and buy the product. A package in programming language is exactly what I wrote to you. All you told until now in favor of namespaces are marketing related. Just read your previous messages. OK, let's see - what is marketing? If it's a set of efforts aimed at promoting better understanding and wider usage of PHP language than I don't see how it can be bad and how it is not important to consider. If it's an evil conspiracy of suit-wearing aliens to subvert PHP community to serve their evil alien purposes then I know nothing about it but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with what I do. No. You mentioned not only once that namespace are better for users to understand than packages. Seems you are the only one until now that still want to keep namespace. But I already have a solution to it I already mentioned on IRC. Instead of namespace or package, you can go to something like zendspace or stanspace +1 zendspace Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like: http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage Neither, actually. But it's not about should we imitate C# or Java. It's about what's best for PHP. My opinion is that for PHP would be best to have namespaces and not packages. From Portuguese Brazilian Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package Translated to you In English, it says: A software package is a bundle of one or several files that either are necessary for the execution of a computer program, or add features for a program already installed on the computer or network of computers. A software package is that beautiful box you go to the supermarket and buy the product. A package in programming language is exactly what I wrote to you. All you told until now in favor of namespaces are marketing related. Just read your previous messages. OK, let's see - what is marketing? If it's a set of efforts aimed at promoting better understanding and wider usage of PHP language than I don't see how it can be bad and how it is not important to consider. If it's an evil conspiracy of suit-wearing aliens to subvert PHP community to serve their evil alien purposes then I know nothing about it but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with what I do. No. You mentioned not only once that namespace are better for users to understand than packages. Seems you are the only one until now that still want to keep namespace. But I already have a solution to it I already mentioned on IRC. Instead of namespace or package, you can go to something like zendspace or stanspace That's my final 2 cents. I hope I do not have to come back and write another message here. It's up to you to decide which you think is best for PHP. I am not a good C programmer and I can't really purpose a patch to something better. I only have my ideas that I can try to talk to you. ALA I put myself on a month to study the PHP's source, I can't help in development. Best regards, -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
A software package is that beautiful box you go to the supermarket and buy the product. A package in programming language is exactly what I wrote to you. If by programming language you mean Java, since some people consider these to be synonymous ;) No. You mentioned not only once that namespace are better for users to understand than packages. Yep. Seems you are the only one until now that still want to keep namespace. That's not true. Even if you discount people that don't care or dare enough to write on the list, there were still people who wrote in support of keeping namespace and they weren't me :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
That's not true. Even if you discount people that don't care or dare enough to write on the list, there were still people who wrote in support of keeping namespace and they weren't me :) Okay, I'll dare. I vote for using the name Package for the current implementation. This leaves the Namespace name available for future development if/as needed (such as if the language were to show itself to need more than one namespace per file (or whatever the future may hold)). It can still be touted that PHP has namespace support regardless of whether it's called package or not (something many developers, myself included, will be very happy to see). To me the term package, in this context, refers to a more specific implementation of the namespace concept. Much as automobile refers to a general concept while luxury, sports and economy refer to more specific implementations of the idea. Regardless of what's chosen, a huge thanks to all the developers of PHP who make these things happen. Thank you all! -- Mark -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
This leaves the Namespace name available for future development if/as Which means we officially declare PHP *doesn't* have namespaces (since we reserve the right to develop it in the future, it's obvious we didn't do it yet). Why it would be a good thing? needed (such as if the language were to show itself to need more than one namespace per file (or whatever the future may hold)). So if we add braces we'd have to rename the keyword? It can still be touted that PHP has namespace support regardless of Yes, we'd have to say we have namespace support but we call it packages and when people ask why? we'd answer well, because Java calls it so and people would say ah, so when you were saying PHP is not Java - *that's* what you meant! -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: If PHP team release in the news: PHP has namespace support! OR PHP has package support! Everyone will understand what does that mean. Those that do not I wouldn't. And that's not because I'm so dense, but because package could mean anything, from next generation autoloader (I myself proposed such concept a while ago, and others did too) to integrating PHAR support into core. That's a fair point, I think. Package seems to imply distributable. While one can use a namespace as a way to segregate a distributable package, that's not the only use of it and not the one I see myself using it for. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev schrieb: Could you give definition of what is a package, so we could see if it resembles more of a package or less? http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/packages.doc.html -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hello Larry, even if their other main language is JS - they still do not have namespaces or packages and even if both languages have something. I'd rather confuse people that only know two languages which are very different anyways than confusing the probably much bigger group of people that know C++ and Java as well. Remember that C++ and Java together are still responsible for around 50% of all code written nowadays. marcus Monday, August 13, 2007, 3:35:04 PM, you wrote: On Monday 13 August 2007, Tijnema wrote: On 8/13/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther Uhh, ECMAScript?? ECMAScript is the formal name for what most people call Javascript. Technically Javascript is the Mozilla implementation of ECMAScript and JScript is the MS implementation. 70% of the world just calls it Javascript, and 29% calls it Ajax because they don't know any better. :-) I believe the original point is that for most PHP programmers their other main languages will be Javascript and SQL, not C++ or C#, so if the goal is to use a name that's predictable for someone coming from another language we should assume Javascript as that other language, not Java or C#. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Hello Stanislav, JS has not much in common with PHP so it shouldn't be used as just another language to steal ideas from. Actually we are speaking of an OO feature here and when it comes to that than the two are very different. PHP on the one hand uses class based OO (like C++ and Java) while JS uses prototype based OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an extremly bad far fetched argument. marcus Saturday, August 11, 2007, 9:57:37 PM, you wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:25 -0700 From: Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Zend Technologies To: Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] FWIW. I teach PHP and for most students I believe their other implementation of namespaces will soon be the one in ECMAScript 4/JavaScript 2. Thanks for mentioning it! From what I can see, their idea of namespaces is radically different from what C++ is doing and equally different from what packages are anywhere. They basically introduce an orthogonal namespacing plane (or we can call it attribute set that can be applied to any name) which can be operated independently of the main namespace. It's interesting and can be a powerful tool but I imaging how mind-boggling would be the code seriously using that capability. And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ From what I gather it looks a lot like this one for PHP, and packages in JS 2 is something more different. http://developer.mozilla.org/presentations/xtech2006/javascript/ The packages there, however, seem very much like Java ones with addition of braces. P.S. I see you didn't send that to the list - will it be OK to forward it and my response there? I think it's interesting contribution to the discussion. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
I am not the one that want to put more fire in this entire discussion... I'm tired of listening (this is like package or like namespace or because my students like it or even that PHP has a unique implementation). I've read all comments and I think I can give my 2 cents. Instead of keep talking about namespace or package, enlist feature that both have to deal and how PHP solve it. The PHP behaves more like package or namespace in this feature? Count all the winners and the major is the result that everybody is expecting. Let me point examples... Subject: File Struture Comments: Namespace do not restrict directories (AFAIK) Packages restrict directories (each package have a directory with its name, like Zend/Cache/File.php) Question: What is the behavior of PHP in this situation? PHP restricts the directory, just like packages. So, Zend/Cache/File.php is the package Zend::Cache and has the class named File Winner: package Multiple namespaces/packages in one file: Make a list, define how PHP deals with any situation and the count winner is the answer for the so discussed question. Regards, On 8/14/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Stanislav, JS has not much in common with PHP so it shouldn't be used as just another language to steal ideas from. Actually we are speaking of an OO feature here and when it comes to that than the two are very different. PHP on the one hand uses class based OO (like C++ and Java) while JS uses prototype based OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an extremly bad far fetched argument. marcus Saturday, August 11, 2007, 9:57:37 PM, you wrote: Original Message Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:25 -0700 From: Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Zend Technologies To: Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] FWIW. I teach PHP and for most students I believe their other implementation of namespaces will soon be the one in ECMAScript 4/JavaScript 2. Thanks for mentioning it! From what I can see, their idea of namespaces is radically different from what C++ is doing and equally different from what packages are anywhere. They basically introduce an orthogonal namespacing plane (or we can call it attribute set that can be applied to any name) which can be operated independently of the main namespace. It's interesting and can be a powerful tool but I imaging how mind-boggling would be the code seriously using that capability. And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ From what I gather it looks a lot like this one for PHP, and packages in JS 2 is something more different. http://developer.mozilla.org/presentations/xtech2006/javascript/ The packages there, however, seem very much like Java ones with addition of braces. P.S. I see you didn't send that to the list - will it be OK to forward it and my response there? I think it's interesting contribution to the discussion. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an How consistent had acquired a meaning of doing it my way? There's nothing inconsistent in the name namespace and it is very consistent with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting for that non-C++ does it with braces argument btw. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/14/07, Guilherme Blanco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not the one that want to put more fire in this entire
discussion... I'm tired of listening (this is like package or like
namespace or because my students like it or even that PHP has a unique
implementation).
I've read all comments and I think I can give my 2 cents.
Instead of keep talking about namespace or package, enlist feature
that both have to deal and how PHP solve it. The PHP behaves more like
package or namespace in this feature? Count all the winners and the
major is the result that everybody is expecting.
Let me point examples...
Subject: File Struture
Comments:
Namespace do not restrict directories (AFAIK)
Packages restrict directories (each package have a directory with its
name, like Zend/Cache/File.php)
Question: What is the behavior of PHP in this situation?
PHP restricts the directory, just like packages. So,
Zend/Cache/File.php is the package Zend::Cache and has the class named
File
Winner: package
Multiple namespaces/packages in one file:
Make a list, define how PHP deals with any situation and the count
winner is the answer for the so discussed question.
Regards,
On 8/14/07, Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Stanislav,
JS has not much in common with PHP so it shouldn't be used as just another
language to steal ideas from. Actually we are speaking of an OO feature here
and when it comes to that than the two are very different. PHP on the one
hand uses class based OO (like C++ and Java) while JS uses prototype based
OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way
ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an
extremly bad far fetched argument.
marcus
Saturday, August 11, 2007, 9:57:37 PM, you wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:25 -0700
From: Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Zend Technologies
To: Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWIW. I teach PHP and for most students I believe their other
implementation of namespaces will soon be the one in ECMAScript
4/JavaScript 2.
Thanks for mentioning it! From what I can see, their idea of namespaces
is radically different from what C++ is doing and equally different from
what packages are anywhere. They basically introduce an orthogonal
namespacing plane (or we can call it attribute set that can be applied
to any name) which can be operated independently of the main namespace.
It's interesting and can be a powerful tool but I imaging how
mind-boggling would be the code seriously using that capability.
And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because
it's not c++
From what I gather it looks a lot like this one for PHP, and packages
in JS 2 is something more different.
http://developer.mozilla.org/presentations/xtech2006/javascript/
The packages there, however, seem very much like Java ones with addition
of braces.
P.S. I see you didn't send that to the list - will it be OK to forward
it and my response there? I think it's interesting contribution to the
discussion.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer
CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant
Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://blog.bisna.com
São Carlos - SP/Brazil
Short and sweet.
Here's a test, anyone.. write up an example of a python package, a
java package, a c++ namespace and c# namespace. Then show us how to
use them and it should be clear enough on what we have in PHP.
I'll make the first part:
---
C#:
--File: csNamespace.cs (The namespace code extended example))--
namespace NameOne
{
namespace HierarchicalNamespace
{
namespace SomeOtherName
{
public class SayHi
{
public string sayHi()
{
System.Console.WriteLine('Hi..');
}
}
}
}
}
--File: csUtil.cs (Invoking the NS)--
using NameOne.HierarchicalNamespace.SomeOtherName;
-
c++:
--File: cppNamespace.lh (The namespace code)--
namespace NameTwo
{
namespace AnotherHierarchyNamespace
{
int someInt;
}
class
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/14/07, Stanislav Malyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OO. And anyway, are we struggling to find excuses here? Can we in no way ever at least try to be consistent in anything we do? That JS argument is an How consistent had acquired a meaning of doing it my way? There's nothing inconsistent in the name namespace and it is very consistent with what people understand - I quoted wiki on that. I'm still waiting for that non-C++ does it with braces argument btw. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php I am for package because: - The keywords are actually the words used in similar technology as such as java and python - The single namespace per file is common to a package design but hey - No hierarchical namespaces (within one namespace) - I believe it will be easier to anyone who will be learning our namespace/package to keep on going learning other languages. Since the our implementation is very package like, it will not be so much confusing for someone in C++ that will be using namespaces and will be simple for someone coming from Java to use our package system (yet less complex than java, thanks for that) - For Stas (There are no brackets) :) - Because no one can say Do you have a patch? since there is already one made and ready to be applied. I now stand as a spectator. do I get a 2 cents or so ? :P 0x02 cents. D -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Guilherme Blanco wrote: Subject: File Struture Comments: Namespace do not restrict directories (AFAIK) Packages restrict directories (each package have a directory with its name, like Zend/Cache/File.php) Question: What is the behavior of PHP in this situation? PHP restricts the directory, just like packages. So, Zend/Cache/File.php is the package Zend::Cache and has the class named File Did I miss something? The [namespace|package] implementation that went in is file-based, but not directory based AFAIK. There's nothing preventing you from having multiple files in a single directory that are in totally different namespaces. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/13/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther Uhh, ECMAScript?? I do program a lot in Java/C# (and others) a lot, and I don't think it would be good to confuse people with the same name for something different. Tijnema -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On Monday 13 August 2007, Tijnema wrote: On 8/13/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther Uhh, ECMAScript?? ECMAScript is the formal name for what most people call Javascript. Technically Javascript is the Mozilla implementation of ECMAScript and JScript is the MS implementation. 70% of the world just calls it Javascript, and 29% calls it Ajax because they don't know any better. :-) I believe the original point is that for most PHP programmers their other main languages will be Javascript and SQL, not C++ or C#, so if the goal is to use a name that's predictable for someone coming from another language we should assume Javascript as that other language, not Java or C#. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 13/08/07, Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since JavaScript (or ECMAScript) doesn't have namespaces, people that hear the name namespace for php will either don't know what it is, or think that it's the same as the C implementation. Tijnema I don't know what namespaces look like in other langs, but the idea of a namespace is common to many languages and promoting encapsulation to stop adding things to the global namespace is common also. namespace works very well for what it does (as I see it). -- - Richard Quadling Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498r=213474731 Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants! -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
On 8/13/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 13 August 2007, Tijnema wrote: On 8/13/07, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther Uhh, ECMAScript?? ECMAScript is the formal name for what most people call Javascript. Technically Javascript is the Mozilla implementation of ECMAScript and JScript is the MS implementation. 70% of the world just calls it Javascript, and 29% calls it Ajax because they don't know any better. :-) Thanks for the explanation ;-) I believe the original point is that for most PHP programmers their other main languages will be Javascript and SQL, not C++ or C#, so if the goal is to use a name that's predictable for someone coming from another language we should assume Javascript as that other language, not Java or C#. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 There's also a quite large group that is coming from ASP.NET right? ASP.NET has C#-style namespaces, and that will get a lot of confusion I think. And for uers coming from perl, there's a perl extensions that enables C++-style namespaces, and that's also different. Since JavaScript (or ECMAScript) doesn't have namespaces, people that hear the name namespace for php will either don't know what it is, or think that it's the same as the C implementation. Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
It isn't C++-like namespaces and it isn't Java-like packages. So it doesn't really matters what name will be used. It will confuse newcomers from any language anyway. I came to PHP from C++ and I find my self confused from time to time even though I code in PHP for a few years now. There are already more then one thing in named just the same as in C++ but implemented differently. One more thing woun't change anything. FWIW, I vote for `namespace`. BTW, if we are talking about the names already I have a question. Why `import`? Why not `use`? AFAIK it's reserved and not used for anything and IMHO it's better pair for `namespace`. Regards, Giedrius -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
Tijnema skrev: Since JavaScript (or ECMAScript) doesn't have namespaces, people that hear the name namespace for php will either don't know what it is, or think that it's the same as the C implementation. ECMAScript 3 aka JavaScript 1.x does not have NS. ECMAScript 4 aka JavaScript 2 will have NS. Why do I think that most newbies - for whom the naem we use care the most! - will not come from C++, C#, Java or anything else. Because having taught PHP to newbies for quite some time now I clearly see that PHP is their first or second language, and the other one is JS. I wan to make a web page Off to learn HTML and (in a good world standards and CSS) I want to have a contact form/discussion board/news/blog Tada! Enter PHP! I want some cool animation. Enter JavaScript. In a good world they will be taught secure PHP programming, unobtrusive DOM-scripting, etc. Mostly they won't, but the name namespace makes a lot more sense in trying to explain the purpose, and would make my job easier. Lars Gunther -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [Fwd: Re: [PHP-DEV] Renaming namespaces to packages]
The two pages for reference. http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/chapter_11_packages.html http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/spec/chapter_12_namespaces.html The spec's quite nice, although a bit of a nightmare to implement in parts ;) - From what I've seen, and I've not been keeping up with all the posts - PHP's implementation looks a bit more like Javascript packages. Regards Alan Keryx Web wrote: Stanislav Malyshev skrev: And they, btw, are not ashamed of calling it namespaces just because it's not c++ ;) Exactly. That was my main point. And, as I said,ECMAScript 4 will most probably be the main other language for most ordinary PHP developers, not Java and certainly not C. Especially the newbie ones! From a pedagogic point of view I'd say namespaces is the better name. Lars Gunther -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
