On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 6:40 PM, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > > Link to RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/libsodium > > > > I'd like to bump the RFC to make Libsodium a core extension, as per > > Ferenc's suggestion on the mcrypt RFC. > > > > Question: If this extension is adopted, which syntax would you prefer? > > > > \Sodium\func() > > Sodium::func() > > sodium_func() > > > > As it currently stands, the PHP extension in PECL uses a namespace + > > function format. > > > > Scott Arciszewski > > Chief Development Officer > > Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com> > > > > The third option (*sodium_func()*) as per coding standard: > > https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/master/CODING_STANDARDS#L110-L125 > > I do not think that it makes sense to provide a static class for this > functionality, correct me if I am wrong. > > It definitely makes no sense to namespace the stuff if you want it in > core and it violate the coding standards (for a good reason). > > -- > Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger > > Okay, I missed that detail somehow. I talked with Frank and the current plan of action as I understand it is: 1. Finish libsodium 1.0.9 2. Finish libsodium-php 1.0.3 3. Create a branch for this RFC that conforms to the coding standards 4. If the RFC passes, send a pull request to add the standards-conforming version of the sodium PHP extension to core I'll hold off on opening the vote until there's something concrete and meaningful for everyone to test. Are there any other concerns, questions, comments, etc. that haven't already been addressed in the previous thread? Scott Arciszewski Chief Development Officer Paragon Initiative Enterprises <https://paragonie.com/>
