On 21.03.2010, at 15:29, Fabian Lange wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
>> hmm not sure how this is superior to just injecting the services into the
>> constructor? seems quite verbose and i am not sure for what gain.
>
> there is no big difference. The main one is that you do not need it
> while constructing the object instance. This can be good or bad,
> depending on what you want to do and how you want to use your
> instance.
Being able to reset could be a use case people might want to use to speed up
unit testing, but there might still be all sorts of other stuff that could need
to be reset for that use case. I still think its insanely verbose so I would
want to see more reasons to favor this approach over injecting into the
constructor (and no I am not counting potentially really long constructor
method signatures as a good enough reason either).
But this gives me an idea for how to solve the optional method specific
dependencies situation: There could be optional for a [actionname]Setup method
that if defined is called before the action method. At that point its probably
best to then use the approach of matching services names to the variable names
in the method signature. This again would also help in making it fairly easy to
check for what dependencies an action class has (look at the constructor and
any *Setup() methods.
So just for illustration an action that uses the service "mail" to send a mail
with the email as the request parameter "mail".
public function showSetup($mail) {
$this->mailer = $mailer;
}
public function showAction($content, $mail) {
$this->mailer->setContent($content);
$this->mailer->setTo($mail);
$this->mailer->send();
}
So basically before calling showAction(), there would be a check if there is a
showSetup() and if so the method signature would be introspected to find
variables that match service names and probably throw an exception if something
cannot be matched to a service name.
Now sure I like my proposed naming convention. I sort of followed the structure
of the "showAction" naming, but I would prefer "setupShow()" since it starts
with "set". But then I would also favor "actionShow()". Hmm ..
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[email protected]
--
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" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
symfony-devs+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
"REMOVE ME" as the subject.
