On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]> wrote:
> James,
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:52 PM, James Pic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Jame,s
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 3:27 PM, James Pic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hello Jerome,
>>>>
>>>> ie.
>>>>
>>>> $final = ezcConfigurationMerger::merge(array(
>>>> $parent,
>>>> // [...]
>>>> $child,
>>>> ));
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would not use an array here, but only 2 arguments, like $parent and
>>> $child.
>>>
>>
>> I though you wanted to have configuration in multiple directories? ie.
>>
>> array( // in order of importance
>> '/path/to/project/etc/dev',
>> '/path/to/app1/etc/dev',
>> '/path/to/app1/etc/default',
>> '/path/to/app2/etc/dev',
>> '/path/to/app2/etc/default',
>> )
>>
>> Didn't what you want look like something like that?
>
> Ideally yes, but if we split features in two different components,
> then we can keep
> the merge feature only in Configuration and all the rest in the other
> component.
> As long as Configuration provide a merge mechanism between multilple
> configuration groups, then
> you can use this feature for entire files, no matter their location.
> This gives us an interesting flexibility :)
Do you mean that you recommand such a usage:
foreach( $myConfigs as $config ) {
if ( isset( $previousConfig ) ) {
$final = mergeFunc( $previousConfig, $config );
}
$previousConfig = $config;
}
Instead of:
$final = mergeFunc( $myConfigs );
What flexibility does it brings?
Doesn't the first use case look like boilerplate code?
Regards
James
--
http://jamespic.com/contact
Customer is king - Le client est roi - El cliente es rey.
