[DI] Add a base class for extension #6207
Conversation
|
Can you rebase? |
|
hmmm, now that I see the result, I'm not sure it is worth it as the Extension class in the DI component depends on the Config one. |
|
No pb, I can remove it, should I remove the |
|
I would keep everything that is strictly in the DI namespace in the DI extension class and everything else in the HttpKernel class as it is now. |
|
But this change is great if you need the DI without the full stack. What about my other comment ? |
|
Which other comment? This one? "should I remove the ContainerBuilder altogether?" In which case, I don't understand what it means. What about adding 2 classes in the DI component: the base one and another one with the dependency on the config component? Is it overkill? |
I mean that the widely used (ie loaders) I was refering to my first comment here
Overkill I don't know but useless for sure: the |
|
@fabpot sorry to ask again but should we change the naming irt traits ? |
|
@vicb: no, that would be a BC break for no real added benefit. |
depends on #6148
@fabpot should we change
addClassesToCompile& the likes (thinking of traits).