Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:46:28 PM UTC-6, Pedro Cordeiro wrote: > > I understand the reasoning now. It saddens me a little (as an end user) > that I still won't be able to have truly agnostic implementations that > depend on a container (because I need to set the entries, after all, so

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

> Given that most of PSR-11 was developed "off in a corner" from a FIG POV, > I'd strongly suggest that anything people ask about here be taken as a need > for clarification in the metadoc (if something isn't there already). "This > GitHub link in this other group you wouldn't know to look

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

What do you mean? The namespace is simple "Psr\Container". It doesn't clarify domain. On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:19:40 AM UTC+3, Woody Gilk wrote: > > Why should a class name contain information that is present in the class > namespace? If you don't like the class name, there is the

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

Why should a class name contain information that is present in the class namespace? If you don't like the class name, there is the option to apply a "use ... as ..." alias. -- Woody Gilk http://about.me/shadowhand On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Stefano Torresi wrote: > Il

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

Il giorno mer 5 ott 2016 alle ore 01:13 Sara Golemon ha scritto: > My $0.02USD is that it should have DI in the name (i.e. DIContainer) > 100% agree, but I guess this ship has sailed... ;-) It occurs to my mind that, while most of the development of container-interop happened

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

Hey Sara, 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:

Re: [PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

Check the meta doc: https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/proposed/container-meta.md#3-scope Il giorno lun 3 ott 2016 alle ore 19:34 Pedro Cordeiro < pedronar...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I tried searching but couldn't find the reason PSR-11 doesn't have a > `register`, `add` or

[PSR-11] Question about PSR-11

I tried searching but couldn't find the reason PSR-11 doesn't have a `register`, `add` or similar method to register a new service in the container. I'm not sure if I misunderstood something, but it looks like I'll still have to create a new contract wrapper around PSR-11 to define how to