Skip to content

[4.x] Inject installer via service provider#32969

Closed
astridx wants to merge 1 commit intojoomla:4.0-devfrom
astridx:refactconsole
Closed

[4.x] Inject installer via service provider#32969
astridx wants to merge 1 commit intojoomla:4.0-devfrom
astridx:refactconsole

Conversation

@astridx
Copy link
Contributor

@astridx astridx commented Apr 2, 2021

Pull Request for Issue # #31524 (comment).

Summary of Changes

Inject the installer the same way as the database.

@laoneo Was that what you meant in your comment, and @wilsonge is that how it's generally intended ? Then I would standardize it in all places for the CLI.

Testing Instructions

Code review

Additional Questions

I realized while working on this PR, that the container is not in the Joomla Repo but in the Framework. Should not the framework be unified with the Joomla CMS in version 4? The roadmap includes this text:
The power of the Joomla Framework merged into the CMS

@astridx astridx changed the title inject installer via service provider [4.] Inject installer via service provider Apr 2, 2021
@astridx astridx changed the title [4.] Inject installer via service provider [4.x] Inject installer via service provider Apr 2, 2021
@PhilETaylor

This comment was marked as abuse.

@laoneo
Copy link
Member

laoneo commented Apr 3, 2021

I would even go one step further and make the installer a service provider. So you can load in the Console service provider the installer from the installer service provider.

@wilsonge
Copy link
Contributor

wilsonge commented Apr 7, 2021

I would even go one step further and make the installer a service provider. So you can load in the Console service provider the installer from the installer service provider.

I mean I think for Installer that might be a step to far as there's no way to reset all the extension data stored in all it's private/protected properties when installing an extension... (i mean generically speaking I agree)

To me this is in about the right place.

@astridx astridx closed this Apr 14, 2021
@laoneo
Copy link
Member

laoneo commented Apr 14, 2021

@astridx
Copy link
Contributor Author

astridx commented Apr 14, 2021

What exactly are you discussing regarding this line?

@laoneo
Copy link
Member

laoneo commented Apr 15, 2021

That this can be also a service provider which offers an installer so you don't have to create an instance of the installer by yourself. The rest is absolutely fine and should come into 4.0.

@astridx
Copy link
Contributor Author

astridx commented Apr 16, 2021

I mean I think for Installer that might be a step to far as there's no way to reset all the extension data stored in all it's private/protected properties when installing an extension... (i mean generically speaking I agree)

To me this is in about the right place.

I understand @wilsonge so, that he seems that this might be a step to far and it is fine like it is currently?

@laoneo
Copy link
Member

laoneo commented Apr 16, 2021

In this comment #32969 (comment) he quoted my comment. @wilsonge can you shed some light into this one?

@astridx astridx deleted the refactconsole branch January 26, 2023 15:31
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.

5 participants