Closed kelunik closed 7 years ago
I don't care, that's just deciding on whether the paint of the shed needs to be a bit lighter or not...
I really don't think the current two-level namespace makes a lot of sense. I think async-interop should use a single-level namespace to group its standards, and I think it'd be fine if that was Async or AsyncInterop, although the latter would better reflect the name of the organisation.
At least https://github.com/jderusse/async uses Async
currently.
https://bitbucket.org/mkjpryor/async/wiki/Home is another package using Async
, found via http://packanalyst.com/.
If we plan to use async-interop as the Composer vendor name then I think it's least surprising to use AsyncInterop as the namespace root.
If we plan to use async-interop as the Composer vendor name then I think it's least surprising to use AsyncInterop as the namespace root.
I feel strongly about this strategy, this is the least confusing for users and both vendor namespace, composer namespace, and the Github vendor/org match :+1: .
The only reason I can see to continue with Interop\Async
is that container-interop
uses Interop\Container
. Aside from that, AsyncInterop
would be the obvious choice.
http://www.php-fig.org/psr/psr-4/ says the root namespace is the "vendor namespace", we aren't the "interop" vendor, we're the "async" vendor I'd say, but I don't feel strongly about it.