Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-06 Thread Daniel Hunsaker
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-6, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > I understand the reasoning now. It saddens me a little (as an end user) > that I still won't be able to have truly agnostic implementations that > depend on a container (because I need to set the entries, after all, so

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-06 Thread Pedro Cordeiro
I understand the reasoning now. It saddens me a little (as an end user) that I still won't be able to have truly agnostic implementations that depend on a container (because I need to set the entries, after all, so I'll need adapters for each specific implementation), but I understand that unde

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-06 Thread Matthieu Napoli
> Given that most of PSR-11 was developed "off in a corner" from a FIG POV, > I'd strongly suggest that anything people ask about here be taken as a need > for clarification in the metadoc (if something isn't there already). "This > GitHub link in this other group you wouldn't know to look fo

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-05 Thread Larry Garfield
On 10/05/2016 01:26 AM, Stefano Torresi wrote: Il giorno mer 5 ott 2016 alle ore 01:13 Sara Golemon > ha scritto: My $0.02USD is that it should have DI in the name (i.e. DIContainer) 100% agree, but I guess this ship has sailed... ;-) It occurs to my mind that, wh

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-05 Thread Daniel Plainview
What do you mean? The namespace is simple "Psr\Container". It doesn't clarify domain. On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:19:40 AM UTC+3, Woody Gilk wrote: > > Why should a class name contain information that is present in the class > namespace? If you don't like the class name, there is the opti

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-04 Thread Woody Gilk
Why should a class name contain information that is present in the class namespace? If you don't like the class name, there is the option to apply a "use ... as ..." alias. -- Woody Gilk http://about.me/shadowhand On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Stefano Torresi wrote: > Il giorno mer 5 ott 2016

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-04 Thread Stefano Torresi
Il giorno mer 5 ott 2016 alle ore 01:13 Sara Golemon ha scritto: > My $0.02USD is that it should have DI in the name (i.e. DIContainer) > 100% agree, but I guess this ship has sailed... ;-) It occurs to my mind that, while most of the development of container-interop happened outside this list

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-04 Thread Sara Golemon
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:11:26 AM UTC-7, David Négrier wrote: > > Actually, the name of the interface was the first issue we discussed when > starting container-interop (the test-bed for PSR-11). > > You can have a look at the Github issue that explains why we ended up with > ContainerInt

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-04 Thread David Négrier
Hey Sara, Actually, the name of the interface was the first issue we discussed when starting container-interop (the test-bed for PSR-11). You can have a look at the Github issue that explains why we ended up with ContainerInterface here: https://github.com/container-interop/container-interop/i

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Sara Golemon
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > Anyway, how do I prepare my application to have interoperable containers, > since they don't agree on how to add new services? I will have to write > adapters for each specific implementation... doesn't that defeat the >

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Matthew Weier O'Phinney
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > Thanks. I think I missed that. > > Anyway, how do I prepare my application to have interoperable containers, > since they don't agree on how to add new services? I will have to write > adapters for each specific implementation... doesn't tha

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Pedro Cordeiro
After some more research, I found a very passionate discussion about this on github. Thanks. Em segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2016 14:54:30 UTC-3, Pedro Cordeiro escreveu: > > Thanks. I think I missed that. > > Anyway, how do I prepare my application to have interoperable containers, > since

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Pedro Cordeiro
Thanks. I think I missed that. Anyway, how do I prepare my application to have interoperable containers, since they don't agree on how to add new services? I will have to write adapters for each specific implementation... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the PSR? Shouldn't "adding services" b

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Stefano Torresi
Check the meta doc: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/proposed/container-meta.md#3-scope Il giorno lun 3 ott 2016 alle ore 19:34 Pedro Cordeiro < pedronar...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I tried searching but couldn't find the reason PSR-11 doesn't have a > `register`, `add` or sim

[PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

2016-10-03 Thread Pedro Cordeiro
I tried searching but couldn't find the reason PSR-11 doesn't have a `register`, `add` or similar method to register a new service in the container. I'm not sure if I misunderstood something, but it looks like I'll still have to create a new contract wrapper around PSR-11 to define how to regi