Hi,
creating a successful new brand zeta components in my opinion also
requires to change the prefix even if causes some migration pain.
Am 31.07.2010 13:36, schrieb Tobias Schlitt:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 07/31/2010 12:57 PM, Andreas Schamberger wrote:
1) I'm not so happy with keeping the ezc prefix. As far as I recall it
wasn't really considered to change the class prefix to zeta. Ok the
reasoning is valid but wouldn't this big step of moving to Apache justify
the change? If we don't change it now it'll maybe stay forever ... Using
the autoload files for a conversion script would be a save way to do the
conversion.
we considered several ways for changing the class prefix. A fundamental
requirement here is, that people must be able to migrate smoothly. BC
has always been one of the major concerns of eZ Components and we want
to keep it that way.
But it can also become a major annoyance when being obsessed with it ;)
Script based migration is not fully possible, due to PHP's dynamic
nature. For example, if you're using call_user_func() and friends,
conversion is likely to fail. We could therefore not guarantee that
migration to a new class prefix works flawlessly.
I think the script based approach could be considered relatively safe.
The call_user_func problem is obvious but I don't see it as a blocker.
There are 3 major cases:
1) object method call
$object = 'ezcClassName';
call_user_func( array( $object => 'method' );
2) static class function call
call_user_func( array( 'ezcClassName' => 'method' );
3) static class function call with variable
a) $className = 'ezcClassName';
call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' );
b) $className = 'ezc' . 'Class' . 'Name';
call_user_func( array( $className => 'method' );
Is the only problematic case 3b), where the class name is constructed
completely dynamic worth not to change the prefix? Is it such a common
use case?
Maybe I am missing something really important...
Regards,
Andreas
