Re: [PECL-DEV] extension: phpdoc support and extensions - Feedback requested

"Alexey Zakhlestin" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:[email protected]...
> Hi.
>
> Theoretically it sounds fine, but I don't like the naming.
> As far as I understood, extension will focus on extended reflection 
> docblock functionality. It is required for your AOP-task but does not 
> provide AOP on it's own.
> Wouldn't "docblock parser" name be better?
>
> If you plan to add actuall AOP implementation later, then, wouldn't it be 
> better to implement it as the second extension, which depends on this 
> first one?
>
> I believe, that generalised docblock-parser would be useful for many other 
> projects, which do not need actual AOP-functionality.

OK, I will split up the extensions. There will be an extension that will be 
called something like "phpdoc". Will this name be ok?
As pierre mentioned there is a docblock tokenizer already. The "phpdoc" 
extension will be all about accessing the phpdoc in OOP.
It will extend the core reflection classes, will provide a way to register 
phpdoc for c-code (other extension) and it will contain
some usefull methods (f.e. getting all classes/functions tagged with 
"@foo").

"phpdoc" will depend on the docblock-tokenizer already present in pecl.
"aop" will depend on "phpdoc".

Tanks four your feedback, Alexey/Pierre :-)