Just to make sure I understood everything correctly:
1. In theory, base level classes should be moved inside their respective
package.
2. Classes within a package that can have concrete instances and has their
own interfaces and abstract classes belong in their own "subpackage". So for
instance:
-- Саша Стаменковић wrote
(on Thursday, 30 July 2009, 03:59 PM +0200):
> Hm, will it be possible to set autoloader like now, and don't need to mess
> around with namespace and require (use) statements?
The namespace and use statements are not the same as require_once.
"namespace" is used to den
Hm, will it be possible to set autoloader like now, and don't need to mess
around with namespace and require (use) statements?
Regards,
Saša Stamenković
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
> -- Jens Ljungblad wrote
> (on Thursday, 30 July 2009, 05:19 AM -0700):
> >
-- Jens Ljungblad wrote
(on Thursday, 30 July 2009, 05:19 AM -0700):
> I have a few question about what the naming scheme will look like now that
> Php 5.3 and namespaces is here. I've looked a bit at Zend_Application and
> how that component is structured.
>
> 1. Should all base level classes be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Hi,
>
> I have a few question about what the naming scheme will look like now that
> Php 5.3 and namespaces is here. I've looked a bit at Zend_Application and
> how that component is structured.
>
> 1. Should all base level classes be moved? So th
Hi,
I have a few question about what the naming scheme will look like now that
Php 5.3 and namespaces is here. I've looked a bit at Zend_Application and
how that component is structured.
1. Should all base level classes be moved? So that for instance, a class
such as Zend_View should instead be
