2011/3/31 Kris Wallsmith <[email protected]>: > How will this affect packaging and distribution of those components that > implement these interfaces? Will each archive include the entire Api > namespace?
Yes, I think so, and I don't think it's a problem. After all, it's just interfaces and disk space is cheap. > I think the idea looks nice on the surface, but I’m concerned it might be > too “clever.” Has this technique ever been tried before? Java does this all over the place. Java specifications get released as a standardized set of interfaces, which can be implemented by any provider. The JPA interfaces, for example, lie under the javax.persistence namespace[1] but there are several implementations: Hibernate, Toplink, OpenJPA... all in their own vendor namespace, of course. Same for javax.validation[2], javax.jcr[3] and probably others. I too think it's an elegant way to both make the interface for developers very clear and to allow interoperability with other implementations. So +1 for me. Bernhard [1] http://download.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/persistence/package-summary.html [2] http://download.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/validation/package-summary.html [3] http://www.day.com/maven/jsr170/javadocs/jcr-1.0/javax/jcr/package-summary.html -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
