Am 26. April 2012 16:49 schrieb Matt Cockayne <
>
>
> 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
>
I totally unterstand your point. I never said that Zend\Service is
already used. If we move current Service components to ZendService\*,
ServiceLocator implementation. That's my point. I would also agree if
Locked
