On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:46:58 +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 07.04.2011, at 10:50, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
Imho it would make sense for each of the components to define them
and a default implementation theirselves and leaving implementations
to Bridges. I.e.
Symfony\Component\Validator\MessageTranslatorInterface
Symfony\Component\Validator\EnglishValidationMessageTranslator
In this case we can use keys for all the validation messages, but
have them translated by a largish map inside the
"EnglishValidationMessageTranslator". This way validator can be used
out of the box, without any dependencies
Then we would have:
Symfony\Bridge\ValidatorTranslation\TranslationMessageTranslator
implements Symfony\Component\Validator\MessageTranslatorInterface that
delegates to a real translator.
This is exactly how Zeta components does it, which still makes all
the components very independent and uses very small interfaces to
allow bridges (Tie-In components in their naming) to work with each
other.
Since I think the number of interfaces that we need to extract to
decouple some of the components is very small the "duplication" of
these interrfaces makes sense and keeps everything simple.
So you are advocating against an API namespace with the interfaces?
yes i am against the API namespace. It only increases complexity where
a very simple, but similiar solution exists.
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
