2009/12/24 Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de>: > > Hello Jurian, > > The Doctrine 2 Resource I have actually has Zend Tool Project support > already. The > code isn't published yet though. You won't be able to "share code" between > DC1 and DC2 though, they are too different. > > You could of course extend the zf create doctrine.project command to > optionally accepting a deviating path for a certain resource directory. > > Additionally there could be a zf config doctrine.project --resource /path > provider action that allows to re-configure the values and also copies > the directory if necessary.
Any idea when the code for this will be out? I was going to try have a look at the dc2 stuff over the holidays :) I submitted a patch for the resource autoloader btw that allows you to set the ns separator so you can load 5.3 models, service etc etc http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-8205 Hopefully this could then be easily configured in the app config + zt providers. Thx Keith > > greetings, > Benjamin > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:39:07 +0100, Jurian Sluiman > <subscr...@juriansluiman.nl> wrote: >> On Thursday 24 Dec 2009 14:25:33 Benjamin Eberlei wrote: >>> Hey Jurien, >>> >>> This is awesome, from my POV the next step would be to replace the >>> configuration >>> you gave with explicit resources in a Zend Tool Project context. My idea >>> would be: >>> >>> zf create doctrine.project --for-module=blog >>> >>> It would then create the schema, sql, fixtures, migrations and models >>> folders >>> inside the blog module (if it exists) if they don't already exist >>> and register them inside the .zfproject.xml file. >> >> Good idea! When I have this ready, it's time to work towards >> Zend_Tool_Doctrine 2.0 with your modification in mind (still Doctrine 1.2 >> and >> Zend 1.x though ;) ). >> >> It's a trade-off you need to consider. I'd like to have the paths >> configurable. >> The counterpart is Zend_Tool isn't aware of these contexts (am I right?). >> Your proposal means .zfproject.xml knows about Doctrine, but it's much >> harder >> to configure the paths (again, am I right?). >> >>> I have a question about your approach though. Can models of different >>> modules >>> communicate to each other in your approach? Could they have relations to >>> each other? >>> Or are they completely separate? >> >> Woops, you're right. This is something I didn't think of at all. I'm not >> sure >> if Doctrine likes this approach, but it's something I absolutely need to >> look >> at :) >> >>> Migrations on a per module basis would probably require lots of Doctrine >>> modifications. >> >> I'll talk to the Doctrine people if they have a solution for this > specific >> issue. >> >>> greetings, >>> Benjamin >> >> Regards, Jurian >> >> PS. Though Jurriën is also Dutch, my name has an a instead of an e ;) > -- ------------ http://www.thepopeisdead.com
