Hi,
I guess xmlprci is following the mysqli example. I am not sure if this is a good idea to have new BC breaking versions of extensions append letters like "i" (aka "improved") to solve the namespace issue. So I would like to bring this topic up for discussion on this list before too many other extensions blindly follow this example, just because of the lack of a standarized alternative.
Anyways I dont really know if anyone from php core cares about these kinds of topics so just tell me to stfu before we get a needless flame.
The obvious problem is: What comes after "i"? How transparent is this naming scheme to the user?
Don't forget - extensions don't need to co-exist necessarily. If one is designed to replace the old one, it's fine to conflict.
I would recommend that pecl actually look to make names more separate. The number solution works for PEAR because people can reasonably expect to use both the old and the new version of a script in the same file. This is not necessarily the case in PECL.
I personally think the i postfix is an excellent choice :).
Future revisions will suggest new names, sort of like the dom_xml to DOM extension. No need for anything standardized, since the Makefile process provides a centralized location for all things anyways.
Greg
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
