Hey Phil, On 16 May 2016 at 07:15, Phil Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marco, > > Thank you for the quick response here. I ended up adding the association > in the end because it was much more convenient, but I made sure to return > an array result so as not to worry about the performance hit needed to > actually hydrate the objects as well. > > Do you know if there is currently any active work being done on this kind > of thing? If there is, can you point me to a jira issue or pull request? > Nothing going on here: if we change anything, it will be for 3.x (which is being worked on, likely with a full hydrator rewrite). As it stands, we can't change the behavior, as people may be relying on it, even if it looks so horribly broken. Cheers, Marco Pivetta http://twitter.com/Ocramius http://ocramius.github.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "doctrine-user" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/doctrine-user. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
