On 17.03.2011, at 16:22, Marijn Huizendveld wrote: > Hi Chrishtophe, > > On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Christophe COEVOET wrote: > >> Le 17/03/2011 15:53, Marijn a écrit : >>> On Mar 17, 3:43 pm, Jonathan Wage<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I really disagree. I think in the long run the benefits outweigh any short >>>> term annoyance right now. Keep in mind Symfony2 is still alpha so I don't >>>> think it is unreasonable to change this. >>> The arguments I have listed never mentioned that the change is >>> unreasonable, I'm well aware of the fact that the code is still in >>> alpha stage. >>> >>> My primary concern is the fact that by changing this our community >>> will have to learn another implementation. Like I said I'm aware of >>> the benefits but I argue those benefits can be realized with the >>> current implementation. >>> Doing so would save us the resources that now will be used to write >>> new documentation and change a lot of bundles. >>> Don't forget the lack of examples, articles, blog posts, forums and >>> questions on sites like stack overflow. This will slow down adoption >>> (maybe marginal but it will). >>> >>> My argument is simply that we can realize the benefits from this >>> change without a different implementation which will benefit the time >>> and resources we have available! >>> >> Keeping the implementation just because it is the same than the symfony 1 >> one is not a good argument. Symfony 2 is not backward compatible with >> symfony 1. A component relying on a sf1 component can either be ported to >> use the new implementation, either keep the sf1 component. > > I feel like I'm repeating the same arguments over and over again: the same > benefits can be realized without changing the implementation! > This will benefit us as developers because we have more time to polish other > parts of the framework. > Like I said, changing it to _use_ the doctrine version with have been fine as > well, less code to maintain for devs and less concepts for the users. > > In my opinion there is no argument that justifies a change: it all can be > done with our current implementation.
This POV was also put forth during the IRC meeting, which ended up with a +6 vote for switching and -4 vote against. Now if you would have been present we would have had a -5 vote. There was no clear definition if a change from the status quo needed more than 50% approval. I abstained from the vote, because I didnt spend enough time to understand the limitations of the current mode. I definitely see very clear advantages of how we currently use the existing event system and the changes being proposed. If these can be realized by simply subclassing Event using the current model, I do not know. In the same way as we cannot continuously start new discussions, we obviously cannot continuously restart old discussions. Imho either direction isnt going to define if Symfony2 is good or bad. But of course this decision is also not irrelevant. However at this point I think you will have to show with code how you think the current implementation could realize the same benefits as shown in pull 221. And even then I am not sure if we should reconsider at this point. regards, Lukas Kahwe Smith [email protected] -- 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
