Quantcast

"Manager" suffix on component names

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

"Manager" suffix on component names

EvanDotPro
Hi All,

Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?

We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
the line?

On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager suffix:

< prolic> perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
< prolic> rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
Zend\Module\ModuleManager
< prolic> therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
component has no longer the same name as the component
< prolic> but that's okay, imho

Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
else thinks?

PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
Sorry for any headache this causes you!

---
Evan Coury, ZCE
http://blog.evan.pro/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

mattcockayne
I seem to recall a conversation about moving the current Zend_Service_* stuff out of the main framework and possibly giving them their own separate namespace i.e. ZendService\*


If this is still the case then having a Zend\Service\* should be acceptable. Feel free to shoot me down though as i cant remember what the final outcome of the the proposal was.

Matt



On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Evan Coury <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All,

Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?

We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
the line?

On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager suffix:

< prolic> perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
< prolic> rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
Zend\Module\ModuleManager
< prolic> therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
component has no longer the same name as the component
< prolic> but that's okay, imho

Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
else thinks?

PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
Sorry for any headache this causes you!

---
Evan Coury, ZCE
http://blog.evan.pro/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

Sascha-Oliver Prolic
Am 26. April 2012 14:54 schrieb Matt Cockayne <[hidden email]>:

> I seem to recall a conversation about moving the current Zend_Service_*
> stuff out of the main framework and possibly giving them their own separate
> namespace i.e. ZendService\*
>
> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Service+Components
>
> If this is still the case then having a Zend\Service\* should be acceptable.
> Feel free to shoot me down though as i cant remember what the final outcome
> of the the proposal was.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Evan Coury <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
>> Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
>> was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
>> how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?
>>
>> We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
>> talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
>> is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
>> also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
>> Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
>> the line?
>>
>> On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager suffix:
>>
>> < prolic> perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
>> < prolic> rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
>> Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
>> Zend\Module\ModuleManager
>> < prolic> therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
>> component has no longer the same name as the component
>> < prolic> but that's okay, imho
>>
>> Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
>> dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
>> else thinks?
>>
>> PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
>> since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
>> Sorry for any headache this causes you!
>>
>> ---
>> Evan Coury, ZCE
>> http://blog.evan.pro/

Hi Matt,

problem is, that noone would expect something like a service locator
unter Zend\Service, one would expect old Service classes here (yahoo,
facebook, etc.).
But imho we should not bring up Zend\ServiceManager (I explained that
in another post on the ML today), so anyways..... :-)

Regards

Sascha-Oliver Prolic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

ralphschindler
In reply to this post by EvanDotPro
Lets think about this from the other way around.  When we talk about
these code bases, do we call them components or by their name?

"The Cache component"
"The Log component"

After all, their API is the primary subject.  EventManager and
ModuleManager don't do anything of real use except manage things of real
use.  I think that is why we call it:

"The Module Manager component"
"The Event Manager component"

Another point, ServiceManager, EventManager, and ModuleManager are more
about solving application infrastructure problems as opposed to
Zend\Cache and Zend\Log that solve application's cross-cutting concern
problems.  Different layers I suppose, but I do think you get the picture.

-ralph

On 4/26/12 7:19 AM, Evan Coury wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
> Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
> was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
> how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?
>
> We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
> talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
> is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
> also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
> Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
> the line?
>
> On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager suffix:
>
> <  prolic>  perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
> <  prolic>  rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
> Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
> Zend\Module\ModuleManager
> <  prolic>  therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
> component has no longer the same name as the component
> <  prolic>  but that's okay, imho
>
> Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
> dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
> else thinks?
>
> PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
> since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
> Sorry for any headache this causes you!
>
> ---
> Evan Coury, ZCE
> http://blog.evan.pro/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

mattcockayne
In reply to this post by Sascha-Oliver Prolic


On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Sascha-Oliver Prolic <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am 26. April 2012 14:54 schrieb Matt Cockayne <[hidden email]>:
> I seem to recall a conversation about moving the current Zend_Service_*
> stuff out of the main framework and possibly giving them their own separate
> namespace i.e. ZendService\*
>
> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Service+Components
>
> If this is still the case then having a Zend\Service\* should be acceptable.
> Feel free to shoot me down though as i cant remember what the final outcome
> of the the proposal was.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Evan Coury <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
>> Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
>> was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
>> how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?
>>
>> We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
>> talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
>> is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
>> also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
>> Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
>> the line?
>>
>> On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager suffix:
>>
>> < prolic> perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
>> < prolic> rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
>> Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
>> Zend\Module\ModuleManager
>> < prolic> therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
>> component has no longer the same name as the component
>> < prolic> but that's okay, imho
>>
>> Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
>> dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
>> else thinks?
>>
>> PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
>> since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
>> Sorry for any headache this causes you!
>>
>> ---
>> Evan Coury, ZCE
>> http://blog.evan.pro/

Hi Matt,

problem is, that noone would expect something like a service locator
unter Zend\Service, one would expect old Service classes here (yahoo,
facebook, etc.).
But imho we should not bring up Zend\ServiceManager (I explained that
in another post on the ML today), so anyways..... :-)

Regards

Sascha-Oliver Prolic

Hi Sascha,

My point was that if the RFC I linked to does end up with the current Service components being separated from the core framework and using a new base namespace i.e. "ZendService\*" as has been discussed previously then there would be no "Zend\Service\*" which would leave it free to be used by a service locator.

Matt



--
Matt Cockayne

Zucchi ! Digital Perfection
Managing Director

t: +44 (0) 161 435 6060
m: +44 (0) 7738 364766
a: Trident One / Styal Rd / Manchester / M22 5XP



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

Sascha-Oliver Prolic
Am 26. April 2012 16:49 schrieb Matt Cockayne <[hidden email]>:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Sascha-Oliver Prolic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 26. April 2012 14:54 schrieb Matt Cockayne <[hidden email]>:
>> > I seem to recall a conversation about moving the current Zend_Service_*
>> > stuff out of the main framework and possibly giving them their own
>> > separate
>> > namespace i.e. ZendService\*
>> >
>> > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Service+Components
>> >
>> > If this is still the case then having a Zend\Service\* should be
>> > acceptable.
>> > Feel free to shoot me down though as i cant remember what the final
>> > outcome
>> > of the the proposal was.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Evan Coury <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> Recently prolic and ralphschindler have suggested that we rename
>> >> Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. At first thought, I figured there
>> >> was no harm in this, but upon thinking about it, I started to wonder,
>> >> how do we define whether we suffix a component with "Manager" or not?
>> >>
>> >> We have Zend\EventManager, Zend\ServiceManager (coming soon), and
>> >> talks about renaming Zend\Module to Zend\ModuleManager. So my question
>> >> is, if we're suffixing these with Manager, why these components? Do we
>> >> also rename Zend\Cache to Zend\CacheManager, Zend\Log to
>> >> Zend\LogManager, Zend\Session to Zend\SessionManager? Where do we draw
>> >> the line?
>> >>
>> >> On IRC, prolic suggested the possibility of dropping the manager
>> >> suffix:
>> >>
>> >> < prolic> perhaps just drop the manager suffix?
>> >> < prolic> rename Zend\EventManager\EventManager =>
>> >> Zend\Event\EventManager, Zend\Module\Manager =>
>> >> Zend\Module\ModuleManager
>> >> < prolic> therefore we leave one pattern: the main class of a
>> >> component has no longer the same name as the component
>> >> < prolic> but that's okay, imho
>> >>
>> >> Personally I think I'm with prolic on this and would be in favor of
>> >> dropping "Manager" from component names. I'm curious what everyone
>> >> else thinks?
>> >>
>> >> PS: Ralph, I realize this causes a problem for Zend\ServiceManager
>> >> since simply dropping "Manager" leaves you with Zend\Service, heh.
>> >> Sorry for any headache this causes you!
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Evan Coury, ZCE
>> >> http://blog.evan.pro/
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> problem is, that noone would expect something like a service locator
>> unter Zend\Service, one would expect old Service classes here (yahoo,
>> facebook, etc.).
>> But imho we should not bring up Zend\ServiceManager (I explained that
>> in another post on the ML today), so anyways..... :-)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sascha-Oliver Prolic
>
>
> Hi Sascha,
>
> My point was that if the RFC I linked to does end up with the current
> Service components being separated from the core framework and using a new
> base namespace i.e. "ZendService\*" as has been discussed previously then
> there would be no "Zend\Service\*" which would leave it free to be used by a
> service locator.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Cockayne
>
> Zucchi ! Digital Perfection
> Managing Director
>
> e: [hidden email]
> t: +44 (0) 161 435 6060
> m: +44 (0) 7738 364766
> w: zucchi.co.uk
> a: Trident One / Styal Rd / Manchester / M22 5XP
>
> sk: matt.cockayne
> tw: @mattcockayne
> in: matthewcockayne
>
> Click for Email Disclaimer
>

Hi Matt,

I totally unterstand your point. I never said that Zend\Service is
already used. If we move current Service components to ZendService\*,
we can use the Service namespace.
BUT I think noone would EXPECT that in Zend\Service is a
ServiceLocator implementation. That's my point. I would also agree if
we say keep the name Zend\ServiceManager.

Regards

Sascha-Oliver Prolic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "Manager" suffix on component names

Mike Willbanks
In reply to this post by mattcockayne
Hello Matt,

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Matt Cockayne <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I seem to recall a conversation about moving the current Zend_Service_*
> stuff out of the main framework and possibly giving them their own separate
> namespace i.e. ZendService\*
>
> http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV2/RFC+-+Service+Components
>
> If this is still the case then having a Zend\Service\* should be acceptable.
> Feel free to shoot me down though as i cant remember what the final outcome
> of the the proposal was.

This is still the case; just need some time to update components and
start to move them out of the repos... I'm hoping to get most of this
completed around beta5 (fingers crossed).

<snip>

Mike
Loading...