On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:09:44 +0100, Jordi Boggiano <[email protected]> wrote: > Heya, > > I am wondering if it really makes sense to have: > > twig.config: > orm.config: > ext.config: > > .. I see the point that one extension could have more than configLoad(), > it could have fooLoad() and then use: > > ext.foo: > > But.. is it really useful? It seems that everyone more or less > standardized on using *.config, so imo we could remove it and let it > just be: > > twig: > orm: > ext: >
orm is a bad example as it is doctrine.dbal and doctrine.orm, not dbal.config and orm.config :) I think removing the .config could be confusing as the config block will look differently when the extension uses configLaod than when it uses an other name. > What do you think? > > Of course the only problem is if someone names their extension > parameters or services, then it conflicts, but we could easily mark > those as reserved. > > There is also the case of XML, where twig.config is twig:config, which > is a namespace; I guess in that case it makes a bit more sense, but I'm > not sure what it'd mean to remove the namespace. Losing XSD capability? > > Cheers > > -- > Jordi Boggiano > @seldaek :: http://seld.be/ Removing the namespace in XML will make it impossible to validate the config file (and to have auto-completion in IDE which is possible when the schema is available like Symfony one). Btw, there is not only services and parameters but also interfaces I think -- Christophe | Stof -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on symfony, please send it to security at symfony-project.com You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
