Inline below:
Bill Karwin wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Schindler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
factory(Zend_Config $config);
factory(string $type, Array $args);
factory(string $type, Zend_Config $args);
Yes, I agree with that. It's no problem to code it.
Awesome, is this something we can put in jira as a future improvement
now? or should round out the config discussion?
Anyway, I'm not sure why we need a new class for this. Why can't one do
it in the following way? I tried it, and this works with the current
classes. You can create a new Zend_Registry object and store it as a
value in the singleton registry.
$db = Zend_Db::factory(...);
$dbRegistry = new Zend_Registry();
$dbRegistry->default = $dbRegistry->blog = $db;
Zend_Registry::set('db', $dbRegistry);
Then access db adapters later in your app:
$db = Zend_Registry::get('db')->blog;
Of course that way works! It is php after all ;)
But in the long run (for the goal of creating portable modules that need
little to no configuration to work inside a zf enabled application),
offloading the "container" creation to the developer introduces more
complexities that could be taken care of in Zend_Db itself.
The difference is in requirements. Say I write a module for using in ZF
enabled applications called 'The ZFPublish module'. And Matthew writes
a module called 'The ZFWiki module'. Both modules aim at being a drop
in an config to work type of application. Very little code is needed.
Both modules need a db adapter.
Without a db registry, there is not gonna be a standard convention as to
where to find a database adapter, named or not. My module might call
for the usage of a db registry (created by the user) or worse, a global
registry (created by the user). Since I am offloading the creation of a
registry to the user in both cases, I cannot say with any certainty that
other modules, like matthews will be using the same 'db' named registry.
Perhaps he might call his 'dbAdapter'. In which case, now the user has
to create two registries that solve the same problem. Sounds a bit like
its not adhering to DRY principals.
If there were a Db Registry, my module might be able to look for a
'blog' name key'ed adapter, then perhaps fallback on the 'default'
adapter. In Matthew's module, he will be able to look for the zfWiki
key'd db adapter, and fallback on the 'default' adapter.
In both cases, having a Zend_Db_Registry allows us to not require the
user to create the actual 'container' and can only have to worry about
whats actually in the container.
As a module writer, I don't have to go out and 'create a convention',
nor do I have to know what Matthew is working on, and ask him if my
conventions will play with his conventions for those people that want to
use zfWiki and zfPublish in the same site.
Sorry, the 2 cents got inflated to about 5 cents ;)
Regards,
Ralph
