On 8/15/07, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PHP has namespaced package support. > > Yep, that's what I was talking about. "We have namespaces but we call it > packages because Java does". Eek. >
Take a look at this URL and tell me which one PHP does look like: http://kaistizen.net/Project/CSharpJava/csharp_java.htm#NamespaceVsPackage > > Wikipedia also define the term MVC. But alas, that is a conceptual > > definition, not blueprints for implementation. > > Who cares about the implementation? It's still MVC. So let's implement > MVC and call it "distributed enterprise messaging" and then let's spend > next 2 years explaining that it was really MVC that we meant. > > > namespaces and packages. But the general taste this will leave in > > peoples mouthes is package, even if it is a Grapple. > > I am still waiting to know what is package? I know what is namespace - > and I for everybody that doesn't know I can explain it in 2 minutes with > one hand tied behind my back. But what is "package"? > From Portuguese Brazilian Wikipedia: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package Translated to you.... One package is a group of classes and interfaces related. In computers' area, package is a general purpose mechanism to organize elements in groups. For example, a package java.io which holds all the classes, in Java programming language, that handles with data input/output. Advantages: Easy to find and use the classes; Prevent conflicts in respect to names (MY note: literal translation); access control; The programmers must group in packages the classes and interfaces correlated; The classes and platforms that make part of JAVA platform are members of various packages. To create a package, you can only put an interface and one class inside a package. > > current implementation doesn't have braces; this (consequently) adds a > > Ouch, not braces again. What is it with braces that you need them so > badly? Many languages aren't using the things ever, isn't it a proof > that there's life outside braces? ;) > Braces should only be used if you try to follow the scope idea I already mentioned. But this is part of namespace paradigm. > > library "packages". Point in case is how the ZF has used a > > pesudo-namespace-ing class name to accomplish the very same thing. > > ZF is using Very_Very_Long_And_Very_Irritating_Class_Names because > there's no choice to do otherwise. That's why we wrote namespaces - to > provide this choice. > If you are creating this patch only to simplify this, I recommend you to keep it as PHP is currently and just add namespace/package support with a serious implementation. > > +1 on package, it makes the most sense regardless of the marketing draw > > of "namespace" support. > > Please re-read my mail on perception. "Marketing" here is just a way to > say "perception" so it sounds bad to some people for some reason. All you told until now in favor of namespaces are marketing related. Just read your previous messages. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ > (408)253-8829 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best regards, -- Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9166-6902 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://blog.bisna.com São Carlos - SP/Brazil
