+1 On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:16:20 AM UTC-5, Jasper N. Brouwer wrote: > > +1 from me to. As 2.3 is going to have BC breaks anyway, I see no harm ;) > > @Bernhard: This is in no way something negative towards all your efforts. > You've made a amazing peace of software! > And I don't mind to help getting this done, I'm sure you have enough on > your plate as it is.. > > -- > Jasper N. Brouwer > > > > On 07-01-2013, at 13:43, Wouter J <jong.de...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > We use PHP namespaces in Symfony2 for 2 main reasons: > > > > 1) Prevent class name collisions > > 2) Organize the code by functionality > > > > While most Symfony2 components (the ones that support a large enough set > of functionalities) respect both principles, I think that the Form > component only respect the first principle. > > To keep consistency across components, I think that updating the Form > component to follow the second principle would be good. > > > > I have opened an issue on symfony/symfony[1] for that. > > > > Currently the top level directory (=namespace) contains a bunch of > unrelated classes: extension, renderer, transformer, builders, event, > guesser, view, type, ... > > I would love to see the classes grouped in different namespaces to ease > the understanding and the maintenance of the Form component. > > > > 2.3 will be our last chance to do this modification as it will be the > first LTS release and we should refrain from breaking BC after that. > > If we don't do before then (6 more months) we will have to live with it > forever and any added classes will be added to the TLD. > > > > Now, there's one drawback, it *will* break BC as the FQCN will change. > > > > On the other hand, there has already been countless BC breaks in the > Form component and I fail to see how this particular one would be worse > than other. > > The other thing you have to keep in mind is that most pending Form PRs > are created with "Backwards compatibility break: no" because we keep legacy > classes for now, > > but all the legacy classes are planned to be removed in 2.3 so in the > end it should be "Backwards compatibility break: yes, in 2.3". > > > > Bernhard does not consider (re)organizing the TLD as worth for 2.3, I > do. However he will consider this if enough people think it is > important[2], so please let us know what you think about this change: > > • +1 = I think it could help, > > • -1 = I don't want more BCs, the current situation is fine with > me, > > • 0 = I really don't care. > > Bernhard, I would like to take the opportunity of this post to let you > know that I truly think that the Form component is great and I really > appreciate all the efforts you put in it to make it even better, > > even if like I have said (too many times ?) lately that I would prefer > to see the 100+ pending issues solved before adding new features. > > > > Cheers, > > Victor > > > > [1] https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/6453 > > [2] https://twitter.com/webmozart/status/288246362334691328 > >
-- -- If you want to report a vulnerability issue on Symfony, please read the procedure on http://symfony.com/security You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to symfony-devs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to symfony-devs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en
