On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:11:26 AM UTC-7, David Négrier wrote: > > Actually, the name of the interface was the first issue we discussed when > starting container-interop (the test-bed for PSR-11). > > You can have a look at the Github issue that explains why we ended up with > ContainerInterface here: > https://github.com/container-interop/container-interop/issues/1 (and the > results of the vote here: > https://github.com/container-interop/container-interop/wiki/%231-interface-name:-Vote > ) > > Thanks for the history link. Good read, and I'm glad so many voices were in that discussion. I've no need to reopen the bike shed, and honestly namespaces afford us the ability to have slightly conflicty names if it ever came to that. My $0.02USD is that it should have DI in the name (i.e. DIContainer), but I'm not fussed at all, really. Don't mind me.
> > 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. > > Indeed, this is a specialization of a Map, but if we ever need an > interface to describe a map, well... we could name it MapInterface, > couldn't we? > > True, and perfect being the enemy of good, there's no need to over-engineer what is ultimately a simple solution to the issue. If it looks useful to propose a generic container interface, we can easily avoid the conflict by calling them Collections instead. Sorted. -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/e2aaf025-b3d4-4515-942e-ac6183e008d7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
