Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Namespace amalgamation #215

Closed
cboden opened this issue Jul 14, 2013 · 5 comments
Closed

Namespace amalgamation #215

cboden opened this issue Jul 14, 2013 · 5 comments

Comments

@cboden
Copy link
Member

cboden commented Jul 14, 2013

Merge the SocketClient and HttpClient into the Socket and Http namespaces respectively.

/Socket
        ConnectionInterface
        Connection
        ConnectionException
        /Server
                ServerInterface
                Server
        /Client
                ConnectorInterface
                Connector
                SecureConnector
                StreamEncryption

/Http
        /Client
        /Server
@cboden
Copy link
Member Author

cboden commented Jul 14, 2013

I also wouldn't mind renaming the Socket namespace. It doesn't quite make sense. It's a remote connection, not a socket. It's extending Stream, where streams are a higher level abstraction that (can) use sockets underneath as the transport.

@igorw
Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Oct 16, 2013

What would socket be renamed to? Its general meaning is generally "network connection" which I think is accurate.

@igorw
Copy link
Contributor

igorw commented Oct 16, 2013

Still really dislike the React\Socket\Server\Server btw.

@cboden
Copy link
Member Author

cboden commented Jan 26, 2014

I'm not sure if this is feasible yet, but what about removing the Socket namespace all together. Server would live somewhere in the Stream namespace? TCP/Socket implementation details can be hidden in the API.

@clue
Copy link
Member

clue commented Mar 3, 2017

There's ongoing effort to merge the SocketClient component into the Socket component, see reactphp/socket#74 for more details 👍

@clue clue closed this as completed Mar 3, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants