RE: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and has() methods back
> offset* are the names used for overloading OO syntax. So $obj->prop, > $obj->prop = 5 and isset($obj->prop) should all work nicely. > Don't you prefer that syntax? Oh, well that makes more sense. Call my predilection to "set" and "get" poisoning from Java. ;-) Looks like these pages should be updated to reflect the more conventional usage: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDOCDEV/Zend++register%28%24index%2C+%24newval%29 http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDOCDEV/Zend++registry%28%24index+%3D+null%29 Thanks, -Matt
RE: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and has() methods back
offset* are the names used for overloading OO syntax. So $obj->prop, $obj->prop = 5 and isset($obj->prop) should all work nicely. Don't you prefer that syntax? Andi > -Original Message- > From: Matthew Ratzloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:34 PM > To: fw-general@lists.zend.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and > has() methods back > > Gavin, > > Thanks for the updated documentation. I gotta say, though, > that offsetSet(), offsetGet(), and offsetExists() aren't > nearly as intuitive and easy to remember as the standard > set(), get(), and has() methods of a container object. FWIW, > I think they're poorly named in the SPL class to begin with. > For a registry, it seems to me that those names reflect an > implementation detail not inherent in the nature of the class. > > If necessary, I can subclass--just seems like a lot of people > in my situation might be wondering the same thing. > > Thanks! > > -Matt > > > Thanks Matthew for raising this issue. I've made a couple changes, > > and improved the documentation: > > > > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/Wy8 > > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/pageinfo.action?pageId=12124 > > > > I believe the new code examples show how to pass around a registry > > object explicitly, and then set, get, and test for membership. As > > always, I am grateful for your attention to detail, since > it helps us > > all create a more professional framework :) > > > > Also the new Zend::initRegistry() method enables developers to > > subclass Zend_Registry, and add alias methods for offsetGet() and > > offsetExists(), such as has(), get(), set(), etc., by creating an > > instance of the subclass in bootstrap code, and then supplying that > > instance to initRegistry(), before any other > registry-related methods > > are used. > > > > Cheers, > > Gavin > > > > Matthew Ratzloff wrote: > >> Was it an oversight that Zend_Registry lost its set() and has() > >> methods when it was refactored to extend ArrayObject, > despite still > >> having a corresponding get() method? I don't know about everyone > >> else, but I prefer to pass around a registry object > explicitly rather > >> than rely on the static Zend::register()/isRegistered() > methods. I > >> would really like these methods back. > >> > >> I've filed an issue here: > >> http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-672 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Matt >
Re: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and has() methods back
Gavin, Thanks for the updated documentation. I gotta say, though, that offsetSet(), offsetGet(), and offsetExists() aren't nearly as intuitive and easy to remember as the standard set(), get(), and has() methods of a container object. FWIW, I think they're poorly named in the SPL class to begin with. For a registry, it seems to me that those names reflect an implementation detail not inherent in the nature of the class. If necessary, I can subclass--just seems like a lot of people in my situation might be wondering the same thing. Thanks! -Matt > Thanks Matthew for raising this issue. I've made a couple changes, and > improved the documentation: > > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/Wy8 > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/pageinfo.action?pageId=12124 > > I believe the new code examples show how to pass around a registry > object explicitly, > and then set, get, and test for membership. As always, I am grateful > for your attention > to detail, since it helps us all create a more professional framework :) > > Also the new Zend::initRegistry() method enables developers to subclass > Zend_Registry, > and add alias methods for offsetGet() and offsetExists(), such as has(), > get(), set(), etc., > by creating an instance of the subclass in bootstrap code, and then > supplying that instance > to initRegistry(), before any other registry-related methods are used. > > Cheers, > Gavin > > Matthew Ratzloff wrote: >> Was it an oversight that Zend_Registry lost its set() and has() methods >> when it was refactored to extend ArrayObject, despite still having a >> corresponding get() method? I don't know about everyone else, but I >> prefer to pass around a registry object explicitly rather than rely on >> the >> static Zend::register()/isRegistered() methods. I would really like >> these >> methods back. >> >> I've filed an issue here: >> http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-672 >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Matt
Re: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and has() methods back
Thanks Matthew for raising this issue. I've made a couple changes, and improved the documentation: http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/Wy8 http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/pageinfo.action?pageId=12124 I believe the new code examples show how to pass around a registry object explicitly, and then set, get, and test for membership. As always, I am grateful for your attention to detail, since it helps us all create a more professional framework :) Also the new Zend::initRegistry() method enables developers to subclass Zend_Registry, and add alias methods for offsetGet() and offsetExists(), such as has(), get(), set(), etc., by creating an instance of the subclass in bootstrap code, and then supplying that instance to initRegistry(), before any other registry-related methods are used. Cheers, Gavin Matthew Ratzloff wrote: Was it an oversight that Zend_Registry lost its set() and has() methods when it was refactored to extend ArrayObject, despite still having a corresponding get() method? I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer to pass around a registry object explicitly rather than rely on the static Zend::register()/isRegistered() methods. I would really like these methods back. I've filed an issue here: http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-672 Thanks, -Matt
[fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and has() methods back
Was it an oversight that Zend_Registry lost its set() and has() methods when it was refactored to extend ArrayObject, despite still having a corresponding get() method? I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer to pass around a registry object explicitly rather than rely on the static Zend::register()/isRegistered() methods. I would really like these methods back. I've filed an issue here: http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-672 Thanks, -Matt
