PSR-0 Vendor Name about imagine HOT 8 CLOSED

All classes are in the root namespace of the library which is Imagine. I don't see which place does not follow the PSR-0 standard here.

from imagine.

From what I read, he thinks that everything in Imagine\ should be in a specific package namespace?

If that's the case, _-1_. It seems ridiculous to me tbh; it would just be directory spam for the sake of having more subdirectories - something that java does that just makes it a mess to navigate a codebase with.
If you don't need another subdir, don't add one - adding unnecessary directory layers to cd through when coding is an inefficient programming practice.

Also, it'd break BC completely with everything using a previous version of the library.

from imagine.

Imagine is the package name

from imagine.

Package name and vendor name combined, right?

(That's what I think he's getting at - asking for something like Imagine\Imagine\everythingelsegoeshere, which again I find ridiculous)

from imagine.

I believe what is asked for is to split everything into packages like Imagine\Draw, Imagine\Image, etc. and ImageInterface and ImagineInterface in the top level violate that as they are not part of any package. I will rethink namespaces and packages, thanks

from imagine.

@stof, it's not PSR0 compatible as there's no vendor name, just the Imagine package name.

Thanks for your time @avalanche123 - I think the logical thing to do would be to add an "Avalanche" vendor name, like you have with your Symfony bundles. I don't mind doing the leg work on this if that's what you decide - I'm going to have to do it either way, even if it's just for my own fork.

from imagine.

Monolog, Twig, Assetic and I'd guess others follow the same scheme (LibName*). PSR0 defines \<Vendor Name>\(<Namespace>\)*<Class Name> which means \Vendor\ClassName is legit. The only thing is that the Vendor should be unique of course, but to me a library name (here Imagine) is unique enough, and constitutes a vendor.

Of course if your company is called Imagine too, you may have issues, but I'd give priority to opensource libraries since they are out in the wild, while adjusting your company's namespace for a given project should affect only you.

from imagine.

@Seldaek 👍

I feel like some projects should be released under the Avalanche vendor, but others are bigger than that and should be considered a 'vendor' of their own. Imagine is one of those projects, in my opinion.

But regardless of my opinion, @avalanche123 considered Imagine to be the vendor of this project, and he's the one who gets to decide who the vendor is :)

from imagine.