I agree on both the naming convention (log4j_*), as well as the standard naming convention. There seems to be plenty of sources to suggest different things, but no official declaration within PECL.
On 7/26/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, July 25, 2007 6:20 pm, Will Fitch wrote: > > And the list goes on. I have attached a text file with all 1.4 > > specifications of log4j. I considered log4p_* as a prefix for all > > class > > names, but I am concerned for Java developers moving to PHP who are > > familiar > > with the standard already in place. > > If we need another logging class, and if it's going to co-exist nicely > with other packages, I'd really recommend just using the log4p_* > prefix. > > Anybody not bright enough to figure it out from the kind of > Documentation PHP is known for is already in much deeper trouble. :-) > > I personally don't think any new PECL stuff should go in without some > kind of agreed-upon prefix. > > And the PECL list is almost-for-sure the right place to take this, > come to think of it. > > -- > 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? > > -- Will Fitch Zend Certified Engineer 931.205.8427
