Should this package follow PSR naming convention?

[ellisv]

Doc: https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/

It is common in PHP community to append Interface to the name when naming interfaces. Examples from various famous packages:

• https://github.com/php-fig/log/blob/master/Psr/Log/LoggerInterface.php
• https://github.com/php-fig/http-message/blob/master/src/MessageInterface.php
• https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/KernelInterface.php
• https://github.com/zendframework/zend-http/blob/master/src/Header/HeaderInterface.php

[jcchavezs]

I don't see any benefit on doing so. Using namespaces solves any sort of duplication issue naming we might have.

Anyways, thanks for bringing the discussion over the table.

[fox91]

In my opinion, yes, the code is clearer and avoids misunderstanding. Personally I use this convention in all my projects.

For example:

// ...
use OpenTracing\Tracer as OTTracer;

final class Tracer implements OTTracer
{
    // ...

become more clearly:

// ...
use OpenTracing\TracerInterface;

final class Tracer implements TracerInterface
{
    // ...

[piotrooo]

This looks like completed issue.

[cawolf]

@jcchavezs can you close this issue?

[fox91]

If I have not missed anything, it seems that the code has not been changed but the issue has been closed. Can you add the label "wontfix" to this issue?

[jcchavezs]

Totally @fox91. Thanks!