I've been following this but not on the internal portions of PSR-0...

Why it is needed:
Currently all of the implementations on the autoloading side is pushed in
through a custom class or function inside of spl_autoload whereas the
registered autoloading takes place.  Currently each framework that utilizes
this implements it within their own source code:
* ZF:
http://framework.zend.com/apidoc/1.11/db_Loader_Autoloader.html#%5CZend_Loader_Autoloader
* Symfony: https://github.com/symfony/ClassLoader

By standardizing this inside of an extension gains us 2 very major features
(IMO):
1. Extension would force the standard but could be extended to add in
various needs in the event there is additional functionality.
2. Easier for someone to implement PSR-0 without having to create a custom
autoloader elsewhere

The speed of this should give us a slight bump (only slight seeing as w/o
the use of absolute paths apc doesn't really gain us anything).

Overall; it should clean up the various implementations that are scattered
about.  Additionally; this should gain greater acceptance and an easier
implementations by people creating their custom frameworks or leveraging
something such as PSR-0.

>From the RFC prospective it does seem like many things are missing:
1. Examples
* The easiest example being that of a folder structure and class naming such
as in PSR-0 with the instance of the autoloader.
2. Use Cases
* Examples of framework cases... additionally extending framework libraries
in separate folders.

Regards,

Mike

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi,
>
> I'd to be in favor to include it. However I would like to hear more
> from the people behind PSR-0 to be sure that it is actually what is
> needed and to complete the RFC (it is rather missing real info,
> examples and tests).
>
> Please also update the patch and attach it to the RFC.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
> <guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi internals,
> >
> > It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it seems the class
> > haven't been merged since then.
> > What's the status of this? Can I expect SplClassLoader in 5.4.0?
> >
> > It seems it was approved, but wasn't merged and thread was lost in space.
> =(
> >
> > There's an RFC for it: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/splclassloader
> > There's a patch for it: https://github.com/metagoto/splclassloader
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure the patch still works since it's been over 1 year
> > since it was proposed... =\
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On 6/29/11 6:31 AM, Mike Willbanks wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> There's a RFC covering this. There's a patch also.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/splclassloader
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This one seems to have fallen through the cracks?
> >>
> >> Well, nobody proposed it in time (especially not the RFC author :)
> >>
> >>> * The other implementation I could see is to modify spl_autoload to be
> >>> able
> >>> to pass it a parameter for the auto loading type - right now it will
> >>> attempt
> >>> to autoload everything lowercase (been brought up a few times).
> >>
> >> I think the class looks better. I think RFC needs to be expanded with
> >> description of what the class actually does and how, and then if there
> are
> >> no objections I think we could take it into 5.4.0, since the
> implementation
> >> already exists.
> >> --
> >> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> >> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> >> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
> >>
> >> --
> >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Guilherme Blanco
> > Mobile: +55 (11) 8118-4422
> > MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com
> > São Paulo - SP/Brazil
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>

Reply via email to