Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[5.3] Added Container::getFactory() method #15415

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 14, 2016

Conversation

guiwoda
Copy link
Contributor

@guiwoda guiwoda commented Sep 13, 2016

Without the BC change that #15414 proposed.

@GrahamCampbell GrahamCampbell changed the title Added Container::getFactory() method [5.3] Added Container::getFactory() method Sep 13, 2016

/**
* Get a closure to resolve the given type from the container.
* The given closure will have an optional [array $parameters] parameter
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please apply my earlier comments.

@guiwoda
Copy link
Contributor Author

guiwoda commented Sep 13, 2016

This doesn't avoid the fact that this interface would really need to be added to the contract

We can add it later. There's plenty of implementation code without the proper contract in the rest of the framework. I even made a PR about that a gazillion years ago.

I'll amend with the CS fixes.

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Member

There's plenty of implementation code without the proper contract in the rest of the framework.

Yeh, I know. That's really unfortunate. I'm just trying to avoid making things worse. :)

@guiwoda guiwoda force-pushed the container-get-factory branch from 99b5d92 to 22aad12 Compare September 13, 2016 21:23
@guiwoda
Copy link
Contributor Author

guiwoda commented Sep 13, 2016

@GrahamCampbell if this is merged, I can PR the BC change in the Container contract to master 😄

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Member

Thanks for making those changes. I'd personally rather it only went to master, but I can see arguments for it going to 5.3 in this way too. Ultimately, Taylor will decide if he wants to merge this PR. :)

@guiwoda
Copy link
Contributor Author

guiwoda commented Sep 13, 2016

Awesome!
I feel this could be a starting point for decoupling other components from the container. I don't have a strong opinion on 5.3 or 5.4 other than a more immediate availability on projects.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants