On 23.06.2011, at 11:35, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
> I would like to propose a simpler approach than the "service.action" sytnax
> for using controllers as services "by convention":
>
> A. Keep the Bundle:Controller:Action syntax in routes
>
> Example:
>
> the "_controller: WhitewashingBlogBundle:Post:list" key would be used to
> check for $container->has("whitewashing_blog.controller.post")
>
> The general rule would be $serviceName = slugify($bundle) . ".controller." .
> slugify($controller)
>
> Then you can just change your controllers easily by registering in the DIC:
>
> whitewashing_blog.controller.post:
> arguments:
> "@controller_utils"
I agree that it would be cool if the syntax for the templates and routes would
be the same. The question is if this would add additional overhead for both
approaches or only for one (and if so for which one) and if we would be willing
to accept this overhead.
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
