Solved

Questions about converting existing PHP class to Composer package..??

Posted on 2014-02-16
3
480 Views
Last Modified: 2014-02-20
I have an existing PHP class library on GitHub that consists of a parent class and a few child classes.  I'm just learning about Composer and I'm trying to convert this to a package.

From what I've read, it looks like the first step is going to involve restructuring my directories to follow the PSR-0 standard.  Is that accurate?

If so, that's going to be quite a drastic change to my class, so I'm wondering if I should update my existing GitHub repo or create a separate one altogether..??  Seems like such a drastic change could cause issues for people using my current class if they pull from GitHub not realizing so much was different.  

On that note, how far do I need to go with it?  Right now my structure is old, basic structure where my config file and my class files are in /includes.  Then the classes are named things like paypal.class.php, paypal.adaptive.class.php, etc.  

Well, it looks like this PSR-0 standard is wanting something more like /angelleye/PayPal/PayPal.php, where my class name would just be PayPal instead of paypal.class.php.  And then it looks like I should go with PayPal_Adaptive.php as my adaptive class name, which would then turn into something like /angelleye/PayPal/PayPal/Adaptive.php..??

I'm just not sure I'm following that entirely right, and again, if I am, it seems like maybe this needs to be an entirely separate GitHub repo..??

Also, once I do this, will people that are not using composer still be able to use the class library, or does this make it a composer only type of thing so I'd still have to maintain two separate versions of my class?  I know I have lots of people using my class that are novice and intermediate developers and may not know about or want to use Composer, but would rather just download and include themselves like they always have.  

Any information on if I'm headed down the right track or not would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!
0
Comment
Question by:Andrew Angell
  • 2
3 Comments
 
LVL 108

Accepted Solution

by:
Ray Paseur earned 500 total points
ID: 39864375
I think I would make a separate repository.  This is a big change from what many of your users may be accustomed to, and it will require them to restructure their libraries.  That's not an upgrade, it's an incompatibility (even if it leads to better things).  It also creates twice as much work for you, and to that end, I would deprecate the old repo so you can leave it in the steady state and concentrate your development on the new version.

Suggest you leave this question open for day or two to see what others have to say about it.

Best regards, ~Ray
0
 
LVL 11

Author Comment

by:Andrew Angell
ID: 39864407
Thanks for the info, Ray.  So it sounds like I've got the general idea correct then..??

One thing I'm a little confused about, too, is how to handle config files with this sort of setup..??  Right now my library has that /includes folder with a basic config file (not a class) and then my actual class files, too.

So if I make this change I'd move the class files into something like /lib/angelleye/PayPal/, but would my config file still stay this way or does it need to be converted into an actual class, or how does that get handled exactly?  

Again, any info is appreciated.  Thanks!
0
 
LVL 108

Expert Comment

by:Ray Paseur
ID: 39864446
Yes, I think you have the general idea right on.

If I understand your config file correctly, it would probably become a class that the other classes would extend.  There is never a perfect solution for things like that.  A lot of the current thinking seems to hover around "dependency injection" but this has a feel (to me, at least) like multiple inheritance.  It can create more complexity than it relieves.  Anything we can do that favors convention over configuration makes our software easier for others to use.  At least we can put all of the configuration switches in one script :-)

I've never jumped into composer, so I'm a little unclear about some aspects of it, but I think the idea of include() files goes away in favor of an autoload strategy that is based on structured names.  Beware of case-sensitivity in the names.  You might also want to read a bit about autoload() and spl_autoload_register()
0

Featured Post

How your wiki can always stay up-to-date

Quip doubles as a “living” wiki and a project management tool that evolves with your organization. As you finish projects in Quip, the work remains, easily accessible to all team members, new and old.
- Increase transparency
- Onboard new hires faster
- Access from mobile/offline

Join & Write a Comment

Introduction Many web sites contain image galleries; a common design for these galleries includes a page with a collection of thumbnail images.  You can click on each of the thumbnail images to see the larger version of the image.  This is easily i…
Developers of all skill levels should learn to use current best practices when developing websites. However many developers, new and old, fall into the trap of using deprecated features because this is what so many tutorials and books tell them to u…
The viewer will learn how to dynamically set the form action using jQuery.
This tutorial will teach you the core code needed to finalize the addition of a watermark to your image. The viewer will use a small PHP class to learn and create a watermark.

705 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

19 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now