Hello Jeroen,
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:48:50PM +0200, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
As it would be
a pain for extensions to (at the same time/branch)
support both:
- older MWs without namespaces, and
- newer MWs that would use namespaces.
This is only an issue is we move existing classes from the top level
namespace into something else.
But wouldn't just that be the natural thing to do, if we decide to
adopt namespaces? I am probably missing something here, because ...
isn't switching from “User” to “\User” pointless?
Using namespaces for new code does not cause
hassle for extension developers at all.
That depends on what you mean by “hassle”. At least it leaves core in
a inconsistent state. Some classes using namespaces, some not using
them.
If I were to write extensions for such a core code base (where whether
or not one has to use a namespace is solely determined by the date of
the source file), I'd at least be annoyed.
Furthermore you can alias class
names since 5.3, so even if we where to move stuff, it could be done in
such a way compat is kept.
Yes, of course you can. But as I said it has written pain all over
it. You just move the migration pain from the extensions to core.
Pain nonetheless.
Kind regards,
Christian
--
---- quelltextlich e.U. ---- \\ ---- Christian Aistleitner ----
Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz
Christian Aistleitner
Gruendbergstrasze 65a Email: christian(a)quelltextlich.at
4040 Linz, Austria Phone: +43 732 / 26 95 63
Fax: +43 732 / 26 95 63
Homepage:
http://quelltextlich.at/
---------------------------------------------------------------