Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > dev > Re: [propel-dev] BasePeer and namespaces

propel
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: [propel-dev] BasePeer and namespaces

Reply

Author tony_bibbs
Full name Tony Bibbs
Date 2008-08-11 06:49:38 PDT
Message Yeah, in that case I'd like to pause a bit and nail that down before getting too crazy into it all. Anyone want to take a crack at proposing the new layout. Clearly I'm more interested in the runtime since that does need to know if you are using namespaces or not.

--Tony



----- Original Message ----
From: Ron Rademaker <r.rademaker@virt​ualbuilding.nl>
To: dev at propel dot tigris dot org
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 2:20:00 AM
Subject: Re: [propel-dev] BasePeer and namespaces

Hi,

I think we should keep trunk 5.2 compatible at least until 5.3 is really
out. After that, I think we can drop 5.2 support.

Reviewing the paths for the generator (and runtime) is probably a good
idea.

Ron

Hans Lellelid wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs dot com>
> wrote:
>
> First question: is there a strong desire to keep trunk backwards
> compatible? I'd say make it PHP 5.3 only and use namespaces *within
> Propel* by default. For the actual generated OM classes, I could see
> leaving this optional, but I don't see why we'd need to try to support
> parallel systems within Propel runtime (or generator, for that matter).
>
> More to the point here, I think the $cls should contain the namespace, no
> ... ? I believe Phing trunk (which has namespace support -- though haven't
> tested with latest 5.3) does it this way & it works quite well.
>
> On a related note, I think the directory structure needs to map the
> namespace; that way we can get away with a single token to map to the
> classname, the path, and the namespace (much as we currently map to the
> class & path). And finally, this would allow us to ditch the dot-paths --
> finally! (as Phing is)
>
> So, for example:
>
> propel::util::BasePeer
>
> ... However, I think it may make sense to consolidate the paths in trunk a
> bit too. Commonly used classes, can probably be moved into the top-level.
> e.g. maybe propel::Criteria ? (of course that is slated for redo anyway)
>
> This is especially true for the generator classes.
>
> I think
>
> propel::engine::data​base::model::Column
>
> is probably a little verbose .... :)
>
> Hans
>
>
> --------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org
>
>
>


--------------------​--------------------​--------------------​---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@prop​el.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at propel dot tigris dot org

« Previous message in topic | 1 of 1 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

Re: [propel-dev] BasePeer and namespaces tony_bibbs Tony Bibbs 2008-08-11 06:49:38 PDT
Messages per page: