chanmix51/PommBundle

Config key name

Closed this issue · 7 comments

In the readme, the config name is g_hub_pomm in one place and pomm in two. The code actually uses g_hub_pomm. But maybe it should be changed to pomm. That's what's used for the prefix for the app/console commands.

In any case, at least the readme needs to be fixed.

Oh, right. That would require changing the name of the bundle from GHubPommBundle to PommBundle.

Oh well, I have no problem at all with that. Maybe my knowledge of how sf2 bundles are handled is old but afaik vendor name must appear in the bundle name and class namespaces. This directly implies it appears in the DIC configuration file. Me too I would have preferred pomm as service name in the DIC (which it was in the first place).

Btw if it is about making PommBundle compatible with sf2.1 (which I have no idea today) I would definitely prefer to call it that way.

I am going to check that README.

Yes, I was missing how the config name works. But actually you are using pomm as the service name, so it seems inconsistent.

Certainly some other bundles don't have a separate vendor name as part of the bundle name. DoctrineBundle is Doctrine\Bundle\DoctrineBundle\DoctrineBundle, and PropelBundle is Propel\PropelBundle\PropelBundle. So it seems that GHub\PommBundle\PommBundle should work, or even Pomm\PommBundle\PommBundle.

I am experimenting with Pomm under sf2.1. I have a composer.json file I can submit as a pull request.

Right, it sounds this bundle should be refounded, lot of stuff are not up to date not to say deprecated starting with the service name and the namespace. As I mostly use Pomm with Silex since a year or so, PommBundle is not my priority.

Feel free to change namespace, vendor name and / or service name, there is a good chance your PR will be merged ;)

Do you want to leave the top level of the namespace as GHub (I see you're using that for the Silex stuff) or move to Pomm?

The top level of namespace should imho be Pomm.

#13 takes care of this, so I'm closing it.