I think it's hard to say until we have an actual proposal how it would look code-wise.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 18:14 , Christophe COEVOET <[email protected]> wrote: > > > in 2.0, the triggering of the router was split in 2: the first part of > the initialization (setting the host name, the port, etc...) before the > firewall and the matching itself after the firewall. > > But this was causing many issues because an error thrown by the firewall > would result in an error page rendered by an half-working router. > > > yes and i am raising the question if the use case is important enough so > that we should rather try to solve the issues of that approach. > > 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 > -- 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
