On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really. That abstract factory just relies on a "Config" service (that > is an array or ArrayObject) - it does not depend on Mvc components. > Okay, I'm understanding this "Config" service a little more. I was under the impression ServiceManager\Config would automatically configure all its sub-components with the config data passed in. I don't really see how this is an invalid assumption, though. I'll look into it, too, but this is a new piece to me I just discovered >> today -- seemed to fit my needs (I have 3 different db adapters I need to >> manage ... owie!). And I don't know all the potential implications or >> thought-process around the design decisions for abstract_factory. At the >> base, abstract_factory needs to become config aware upon >> $sm->addAbstractFactory(). >> >> > Not sure what you mean here... > At the point of adding abstract factory classes to the ServiceManager, it's a reasonable assumption you would be passing in itself or the defined configuration. However, I have seen the ambiguity on my part: AdapterAbstractServiceFactory under Zend\Db needs a 'db' key to be defined, which wouldn't be under the 'service_manager' sub-key. Adding complexities when having to discover 'db' location from outside of the ServiceManager package. I did find a solution now, however: My config file actually already had a config service defined: ... 'services' => [ 'app.config' => [ // .. Add my application configs here. ], ], ... Just changing the name to 'Config' actually worked. ;) It would be nice to add in the documentation, then, for the Db AbstractServiceFactory, it is dependent on a 'Config' service of some type, whether it be a factory service, or just a 'services' => 'Config' => [] in the config file. --- Philip g...@gpcentre.net http://www.gpcentre.net/