+1 on the original proposal from Jordi
On 01/14/2011 01:27 PM, stof wrote:
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.
There would simply be no other load functions anymore. So it would
become either orm: dbal: or doctrine_orm: doctrine_dbal: I suppose.
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
--
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
