[DependencyInjection] Rename "exclude tag" to "resource tag" #60002
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resource is more in line with the name we were searching in #59704 (comment)
But in the ContainerBuilder, a resource is already a file or directory path to watch. Isn't there a risk of confusion?
Yeah, that is unfortunate... "resource" also makes me think it could be non-classes (js,md,jpg files). |
Naming (data model?)We shouldn't bike shed too much (I'm already ok with this PR and "resource"), but I'd also suggest: $definition->addDataModelTag('entity', ['connection' => 'default']);What we know is that the class is not a service: it's a class that holds data: a "data model" class. Maybe it's an entity, maybe a DTO made by the user, or an The Container's new SuperpowerMore generically, it seems like we're adding a new superpower to the container:
Is that correct? |
|
|
|
The word |
|
Not blocking, but I still have the same feeling as in #59704:
|
|
I'm for "resource", this is the most generic term. The confusion about config's resources isn't one I would care much about: both things we're talking about are quite advanced concepts that need teaching anyway. |
|
For the remaining point about the excluding behavior being no longer obvious, what about
|
|
It's excluded from being a service, but still managed as a resource for invalidating the container. |
|
Thank you @kbond. |
I find
$definition->addExcludedTag('app.model')and$containerBuilder->findExcludedServiceIds('app.model')unintuitive. If feels like your excluding something from the DI container but in fact, your registering it, but in a "different way". The fact that it's an excluded service is just a side-effect. This is especially weird when the tag has attributes ($definition->addExcludedTag('app.model', ['connection' => 'default'])).Totally open for a name other than "resource".