[TYPO3-50-general] TYPO3CGL package

[Malte Jansen]

Hi Robert

Robert Lemke schrieb:
> Hi Malte, Tim and those who love CGLs ...
> 
> A few weeks ago I promised you that we'd have some better infrastructure 
> in place to handle the package you created for CGL checking. So here we 
> are, we now have The Forge ...
> 
> I just created a new project for you (TYPO3CGL) and added a directory to 
> the subversion repository. You should be able to login with your 
> typo3.org account and upload your package. You also have full access in 
> Redmine to your own project.
> 

Thanks

> So, what's next?
> 
> I sugesst that you upload your code to SVN, so I can get a firt 
> impression of it. Then we'll have to find a way to include it into the 
> Forge modules - that's a subject you'd have to talk with Martin Herr and 
> Sebastian Kurfürst. The idea is that there's a new module "Metrics" for 
> each project in Forge which has sub tabs for CGL compliance, test 
> results, code coverage etc.

Perhaps we could add as TYPO3CGL as sub tab.
It's pretty easy to define the workspace (e.g. 
myInstallationOfTYPO3/Packages/) than you can select a 
Package/File/Director. So the Sniff will only check files in the 
Classes-Folder and Tests-Folder.

So if we need some xml-Files or anything else to check. It's pretty easy 
to add.


> Finally some general thing about the TYPO3CGL Package. Now that we 
> released the FLOW3 brand and it's clear that the package system and all 
> other infrastructure for TYPO3 v5 is technically FLOW3, I wonder if it 
> made sense to rename your package to "FLOW3CGL". Of course that's not 
> just a technical decision - you can see it from two sides: We adhere to 
> the FLOW3 CGLs for TYPO3 v5 or we use the TYPO3 v5 CGLs for FLOW3.

In common the CGL must be used for every Package. TYPO3 is strucktured 
like the following:
- TYPO3 (under the Association)
-- FLOW3
-- TYPO3 5.0
-- TYPO3CGL
-- MyPackage

So it would make sense to leave it as TYPO3CGL .
But you have to decide. ;)


> 
> What do you (all) think about that?
> 
> Same goes for the "T3_" class prefix. Use "F3_" instead? Would be 
> strange though.

"T3_" is just fine.

> If we'd be really and honestly open, we should skip the prefix 
> alltogether and allow "ez_" or "MyCompany_" as well. But that's yet 
> another discussion.

For the PHP-CodeSniffer we had to remove its autoloader, with our own 
autoload. Perhaps something simular could be included automatically...