These look like good conventions that we could follow in order to achieve greater consistency and increased readability of the framework code base. Though I wouldn't want such conventions to slow any current development, it would be nice to have such conventions in place to help make a quality 1.0.0 release.
Others' thoughts? Best regards, Darby Ralph Schindler wrote: > While not intended to define an end all be all standard of class > organization conventions, I would like to toss out an idea for a "loose" > convention perhaps we should try to stick to (even if remotely closely) > in order to achieve some better code readability. > > These represent a logical hierarchy: > > 1. visibility first, then static (if applicable). As noted in the php > manual: http://us2.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.static.php > eg: public static $my_static = 'foo'; > protected $_thing = 'blah'; > > 2. all properties at the top of the class definition, methods to follow. > > 3. within all methods, all statics at the top of the definition, > instance methods follow. > > 4. within the static or instance method group, methods should be > orgainized by visibility, specifically public first, protected second, > private last. > > 5. within each visibility grouping functions grouped by logical > execution, developer need, etc. For example: setOptions() would be > before start() which would be before stop() since that would be the most > logical order of usage. > > Method naming has been covered in the coding standard, as has the > conventions within code. > > Any Ideas? > > -ralph > >
