offset* are the names used for overloading OO syntax. So $obj->prop, $obj->prop = 5 and isset($obj->prop) should all work nicely. Don't you prefer that syntax?
Andi > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Ratzloff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:34 PM > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [fw-general] Zend_Registry needs its set() and > has() methods back > > Gavin, > > Thanks for the updated documentation. I gotta say, though, > that offsetSet(), offsetGet(), and offsetExists() aren't > nearly as intuitive and easy to remember as the standard > set(), get(), and has() methods of a container object. FWIW, > I think they're poorly named in the SPL class to begin with. > For a registry, it seems to me that those names reflect an > implementation detail not inherent in the nature of the class. > > If necessary, I can subclass--just seems like a lot of people > in my situation might be wondering the same thing. > > Thanks! > > -Matt > > > Thanks Matthew for raising this issue. I've made a couple changes, > > and improved the documentation: > > > > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/x/Wy8 > > http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/pageinfo.action?pageId=12124 > > > > I believe the new code examples show how to pass around a registry > > object explicitly, and then set, get, and test for membership. As > > always, I am grateful for your attention to detail, since > it helps us > > all create a more professional framework :) > > > > Also the new Zend::initRegistry() method enables developers to > > subclass Zend_Registry, and add alias methods for offsetGet() and > > offsetExists(), such as has(), get(), set(), etc., by creating an > > instance of the subclass in bootstrap code, and then supplying that > > instance to initRegistry(), before any other > registry-related methods > > are used. > > > > Cheers, > > Gavin > > > > Matthew Ratzloff wrote: > >> Was it an oversight that Zend_Registry lost its set() and has() > >> methods when it was refactored to extend ArrayObject, > despite still > >> having a corresponding get() method? I don't know about everyone > >> else, but I prefer to pass around a registry object > explicitly rather > >> than rely on the static Zend::register()/isRegistered() > methods. I > >> would really like these methods back. > >> > >> I've filed an issue here: > >> http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-672 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Matt >
