On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > Anyway, how do I prepare my application to have interoperable containers, > since they don't agree on how to add new services? I will have to write > adapters for each specific implementation... doesn't that defeat the > purpose of the PSR? Shouldn't "adding services" be in-scope, rather than > 'let some implementations rely on autowiring, others have specific methods > for registering'...? > >> I think the impedance mismatch here is that PSR-11 isn't about generic Containers, but rather about a specialization of Containers aimed at dependency injection. From that point of view, I think the has/get limitation makes more sense, but I personally would like to see the interfaces named in a way which more precisely reflects that use case scenario so that we leave the door more open to generic container interfaces (e.g. Vector, Set, Map type containers). Further, it strikes me as more useful to have that generic container implementation in place, then define a DI model based around it, since the containers presented here are obviously Map specializations.
-Sara -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/9e3670ce-81ec-422e-abdf-27eaab8581aa%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
