Hi folks,

Tony Bibbs wrote:
> The PHP mailing list had a recent post indicating that aside from any
> surprises they intend to release PHP 5.3 stable into the wild.
>
> This brings back to the forefront the issue of namespace support in
> Propel and I'd like to see us release a namespace compatible release
> not too far after 5.3 is released.
>
> I've been using the implementation internally for a few months now and
> feel pretty good with it.  One feature related to namespaces that we
> talked about was the ability to override namespaces on a per-table
> basis.  A couple months ago I indicated that doing that configuration
> in the schema.xml didn't make much sense because, to me and a few
> other devs, the schema.xml is all about database meta-data. I've since
> put that ability into the .properties file.  I know there was
> discussion about changing the INI format to XML but I think we agreed
> to take that on as a separate effort.
>
> That said, the only uncommitted code I have allows you to override the
> namespace for a set of models with the following syntax (this is a
> working sample I'm using):
>
> propel.table.tag.namespace.base = ${propel.namespace.pluginbase}\tagging
> propel.table.tag.output.dir = plugins/tagging/models
>
> Starting with the second line,  it specifies the output directory
> relative to propel.output.dir
>
> The first line sets the namespace for a table called "tag" which is
> based on the following default values:
> propel.namespace.enabled = true
> propel.namespace.base = \MyProject
> propel.namespace.pluginbase = ${propel.namespace.base}\Plugin

> propel.namespace.default.om <http://propel.namespace.default.om> = Model

> propel.namespace.default.peer = Model
> propel.namespace.default.map = Model
>
> This essentially makes it a snap for people developing plugin-based
> packages or bigger non-plugin based systems that would like to better
> organized their model objects.
>
> So for the Dev's I'd like some comments/feedback on this and, if not
> argument, a green light to commit this.
>
> For you folks out in user-land, I'd like to encourage testing of
> namespace support (minus the namespace override above) once 5.3 hits
> the street.

Does anyone have any strong opinion on this?   Personally it seems a bit
awkward to do this in the ini file.  While I agree that schema.xml is
really for database stuff, it's currently the only data structure we
have that represents things in a sensible per-table sort of way.  We do
also have some attributes in there that describe the *mapping* and not
the database -- e.g. the peerName/phpName the inheritance stuff is all
related to the generated objects and not the database.  However, I agree
with the sentiment of separating out PHP directives from database
directives, so I'm not particularly passionate about either argument :)

Hans

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Propel Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to propel-development <at> googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to propel-development+unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.nl/group/propel-development?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---