I disagree - the point in grouping functions by static classes instead of
plain old functions would be to avoid the annoying outcome of php functions
in the past: no standard naming implementation.
Example: what's clearer and more predictable:
strlen()
String::length()
str_split();
String::split()
Other examples of poor function naming conventions which would not be
repeated in static classes of method types:
html_ entity_ decode()
htmlentities()
See what I mean?
Bryce Lohr-2 wrote:
>
> I agree that a plain old function would be the best solution in this
> situation. I think classes full of static methods provide no real value,
> from an object-oriented design perspective. All you get is a bunch of
> extra typing.
>
> It's true the framework currently has no place for normal function
> libraries, but, personally, I think it would be better to make one than
> to start introducing such static classes. The core contributors to this
> framework are really smart people; they should be more than capable of
> keeping these kinds of function libraries from getting out of control.
>
> Just my $0.02,
> Bryce Lohr
>
>
> Jack Sleight wrote:
>>
>> Shahar Evron wrote:
>>>
>>> True, a function is a natural solution - but I think most core people
>>> would consider adding functions to ZF to be against all design concepts.
>>> There is a middle path of course - utility classes grouping static
>>> methods.
>>>
>> Yeah, I guess that in order to fit in with the framework design static
>> classes would make the most sense. I didn't suggest it because I've
>> read articles by people that say you shouldn't use classes for simply
>> grouping static methods; but to be honest I don't really see why it
>> matters so much, especially if it solves a common problem.
>>> class Zend_Utility_String {
>>> /**
>>> * Calculate the byte-length of a string
>>> *
>>> * @param string $string * @return integer String length
>>> */
>>> static public function ByteLength($string);
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * Split a string into words, grouping quoted phrases together
>>> *
>>> * @param string $string * @param string $groupBy
>>> * @return array Tokenized words
>>> */
>>> static public function tokenize($string, $groupBy = '"');
>>>
>>> static public function ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> class Zend_Utility_Math
>>> {
>>> static public function ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> // .. and so on - // I'd even rename classes like Zend_Debug to
>>> Zend_Utility_Debug...
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, I think something like this would be very beneficial, and I'm
>> sure the need for utility methods will come up again. In fact there
>> are probably quite a few static methods in the framework already that
>> could be refactored into such classes, to make them easily available.
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Utility-functions%3A-Calculating-binary-string-length-tf4698527s16154.html#a13438061
Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
