formsess-devel

[Formsess-devel] function & class names

[David <da...@df...>]

Hello,

the subject with assign accepting arrays just made me start to thing
about api compability to smarty.

Classes are named using studlyCaps but what about functions?
Still both ways can be found in formsess (get_value(), hasErrors()).

Since smarty uses underscores in it's function names I vote for doing
that in formsess too.
(Everything else will confuse people, learning formsess is difficult enough)

- david

Re: [Formsess-devel] function & class names

[Katana <ka...@ka...>]

> the subject with assign accepting arrays just made me start to thing
> about api compability to smarty.
> 
> Classes are named using studlyCaps but what about functions?
> Still both ways can be found in formsess (get_value(), hasErrors()).
> 
> Since smarty uses underscores in it's function names I vote for doing
> that in formsess too.
> (Everything else will confuse people, learning formsess is difficult enough)
Yes, I know.
I have partially fixed that issue, but the big problem now is Backward 
Compatibility...
As far as I'm concerned I'm more a studlyCaps user. It is the pear 
standard, and I like it better. I know it's not like that in smarty, but 
there ARE a few things I don't like in Smarty :)

Anyway, how would you handle the backward compatibility problem ? Create 
a method / function with the same name but the chosen convention, and 
mark the old name as deprecated but keep it working ? Another solution 
could be a wrapper class with the old function names, so that you can 
use the whole new ones without having the old ones poluting your memory ?

Bertrand

Re: [Formsess-devel] function & class names

[David <da...@df...>]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:33:34 +0100
Katana <ka...@ka...> wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned I'm more a studlyCaps user. It is the pear 
> standard, and I like it better. I know it's not like that in smarty,
> but there ARE a few things I don't like in Smarty :)

Anyway, my big argument is, formsess should be as easy to use for smarty
users as possible. Personal preferences have to stand back ;)


> Anyway, how would you handle the backward compatibility problem ?
> Create a method / function with the same name but the chosen
> convention, and mark the old name as deprecated but keep it working ?

Yes, that's what I am for.
We could just issue a warning in the old functions and drop them after a while..
I think there're only a few, so the memory consumption shouldn't be that high.


> Another solution could be a wrapper class with the old function names,
> so that you can use the whole new ones without having the old ones
> poluting your memory ?

I think it's not so easy to handle, because people have to use different
class names (FormsessBc?, FormsessNew?)


- david