Yes, I showed here the solution of this problem.
I don't see, that we need contexts ...
--
If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to
security at symfony-project.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "symfony developers" gr
On 11/8/10 2:52 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
i still think that the context approach is viable. but my pet peeve
is the practice of injecting the container and then hardcoding
service names inside the controller. this kills off a lot of
extensibility that was gained by having a DIC to begin with.
On 02.11.2010, at 17:09, ryan weaver wrote:
> Hey guys
>
> After talking to a few people at zendcon (not Fabien yet, he's elusive), I
> feel that this is cool, but heavy-handed and probably unnecessary. I
> understand that we're trying to make sure that bundles are properly reusable
> and ove
Hey guys
After talking to a few people at zendcon (not Fabien yet, he's elusive), I
feel that this is cool, but heavy-handed and probably unnecessary. I
understand that we're trying to make sure that bundles are properly reusable
and overrideable, but with a vibrant community, I think we should co
I personally don't like such things like "context" ... I don't like
that each problem should be solved in the configuration.
It cannot cover each use cases. Then somebody wishes, I need a
configuration that depends on routing pattern
and somebody wishes a configuration depending on special behavior
