On 3/22/10 1:27 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 22.03.2010, at 13:18, Fabien Potencier wrote:
On 3/22/10 1:09 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Approach 3:
I think approach 3 has the least merit. It defaults to a lot of magic and is going to be quite
unreadable. I also do not understand why you say that "All the magic is optional."? It
also doesnt feel like "Very concise code;" to me. Sure you do not need the boilerplate
code in the constructor, however you need to repeat the same parameters in all your action methods
for all the share dependencies.
The magic is optional as you are not forced to pass any service in your
methods. You are right about conciseness. The method code is more concise, but
the method signature is not anymore.
Hmm, how is it optional? With approach 3 you do not have another way to inject,
unless you are referring to injecting the service container, which still means
that there is no way around any kind of magic.
You can just inject the container and get the services from that.
Approach 1:
I do not like approach 1 because of the circular references and the fact that
its not so easy to see the dependencies by just looking at the constructor (and
action method) signatures.
Which circular reference? I don't see any.
Isnt the controller also handled by the service container?
Nope. It is created by a listener.
Approach 2/4
As such I like approach 2 and 4 the best. For approach 4 I would encourage a postfix for
services. It can even be something long like "Service". This indirectly
encourages people to prefer injecting into the constructor, which imho is the better
approach. Once we have traits (I am very certain we will see this in the next bigger
version of PHP), we might be able to provide a trait to reduce the boiler plate code.
A Service postfix for services sounds good to me. But then, I think we need to
be consistent and add the postfix for both services injected in the constructor
and those injected in the methods.
Well ... my point was that a postfix, especially a long one, makes it
abundantly clear which one is the preferred method. Plus I do not think its all
that inconsistent. There are no collisions possible in the constructor, but
there are in the method signature.
--
Of course we could also just not inject the route parameters so that we do not
have naming collisions if we go with approach 3 or 4. But I would find that
quite unfortunate.
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.
