On Thursday, 21 February 2013 10:49:42 UTC+2, Thomas Lundquist wrote: > I like namespace scheme #2 but with one exception. I presume Doctrine 2 is > the > "ORM" but we do have more than that ORM available so nicking that generic > term > could both be confusing and also narcisstic. (I'm always mumbling hars > words > when using "createdb" as a Postgres command :=) >
I agree. On the other hand, the folder tree shouldn't be too deep, so how about some kind of vendor namespacing like this: Persistence/DoctrineORM/ Persistence/DoctrineMongoDBODM/ Persistence/DoctrineOrientODM/ Persistence/PropelORM/ ... If I had a vote, I'd definitely vote for moving towards more structured persistence folder even if it requires some rewriting of bundles. After all, it's a very simple rewrite that provides lots of added clarity for the bundle structure. -- -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on Symfony, please read the procedure on http://symfony.com/security You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Symfony developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
