-- PotatoBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Thursday, 24 January 2008, 04:03 PM -0800): > > Just wondering why it's Zend_Controller_Action compared to > Zend_Controller_Action_Abstract > > ;) Breaking naming conventions should always be specified.
There's actually nothing in the Coding Standards that says an abstract class needs to end in _Abstract; it's simply a convention that is *typically* followed. There are several other places in the framework where abstract classes are not named as such (Zend_Translate_Adapter is one). Look in the standards if you don't believe me. :-) In this particular case, Zend_Controller_Action is one of the first classes ever added to the framework, and the '_Abstract'convention was started much later. We considered renaming it at one point, but it would have broken enough existing code by users of the framework that we deemed it not worthwhile (and making Zend_Controller_Action a concrete class extending Zend_Controller_Action_Abstract would have been a bad move as it doesn't follow the naming conventions for concrete controller classes). -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney PHP Developer | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zend - The PHP Company | http://www.zend.com/
