IRCLogs20110210 (diff)

You must first sign up to be able to contribute.

Changes from Version 1 of IRCLogs20110210

lsmith (IP:
02/14/11 22:35:35 (7 years ago)



  • IRCLogs20110210

    v0 v1  
     1= Summary = 
     5== skip bootstrap.php in app_dev.php == 
     7== Eager Response Creation == 
     9= IRC logs = 
     11Feb 10 11:02:52 <Stof>  lsmith: meeting ? or do you want to wait ? 
     12Feb 10 11:03:10 <lsmith>        i guess we might as well start 
     13Feb 10 11:03:16 <lsmith>        not sure if he is traveling back today 
     14Feb 10 11:03:18 <lsmith>        or whatever 
     15Feb 10 11:03:41 <lsmith>        then again .. most of the topics seem to require his presence 
     16Feb 10 11:03:53 <Stof>  yes 
     17Feb 10 11:04:05 <lsmith>        skip bootstrap.php in app_dev.php: 
     18Feb 10 11:04:10 <lsmith>        maybe that can be discussed .. 
     19Feb 10 11:04:16 <lsmith>        it should just be a small pull for the sandbox 
     20Feb 10 11:04:27 <lsmith>        anyone else around? 
     21Feb 10 11:04:37 <lsmith>        jmikola, kriswallsmith, Seldaek? 
     22Feb 10 11:04:46 <Seldaek>       yup 
     23Feb 10 11:05:11 <mvrhov>        what's interesting is that, I wasn't weven using bootstrap.php.. if it wasn't for your email I'd probably forget about it 
     24Feb 10 11:05:11 <Seldaek>       bootstrap, I'm with you on that one 
     25Feb 10 11:05:41 <Stof>  well, this would mean having a bootstrap_dev.php which require the autoloader and the autoload.php file 
     26Feb 10 11:05:52 <lsmith>        yeah 
     27Feb 10 11:05:53 <Stof>  instead of requiring the Symfony bootstrap file 
     28Feb 10 11:06:04 <Stof>  but I think it is a good idea 
     29Feb 10 11:06:20 <lsmith>        not sure why i didnt just make a pull request 
     30Feb 10 11:06:48 <lsmith>        hmm rande is also not around 
     31Feb 10 11:06:56 <lsmith>        johanness: ping 
     32Feb 10 11:07:47 <jmikola|w>     lsmith: hi 
     33Feb 10 11:07:54 <jmikola|w>     oh snap, meeting time 
     34Feb 10 11:08:02 <jmikola|w>     i think lots of people are travelling  
     35Feb 10 11:08:07 <lsmith>        yeah 
     36Feb 10 11:09:47 <lsmith>        well i am not sure if we are having a meeting at all 
     37Feb 10 11:10:07 <jmikola|w>     i would suggest bumping to friday, but realized that's like 5pm for you european folks :) 
     38Feb 10 11:10:18 <johnwards>     Beer O'clock 
     39Feb 10 11:10:26 <fabian>        stzbr! 
     40Feb 10 11:10:37 *       henrikbjorn has quit (Remote host closed the connection) 
     41Feb 10 11:10:42 <Stof>  is there any subject which does not require fabpot's presence ? 
     42Feb 10 11:10:49 <lsmith>        fabian: now you have to explain stzbr to the uninitiated :) 
     43Feb 10 11:11:10 <lsmith>        well we could try to push a topic forward 
     44Feb 10 11:11:17 <lsmith>        like Eager Response Creation: 
     45Feb 10 11:11:23 <lsmith>        which is still in the early thought stages 
     46Feb 10 11:11:33 <lsmith>        but johanness doesnt seem to be around 
     47Feb 10 11:11:47 *       notjosh ( has joined #symfony-dev 
     48Feb 10 11:12:32 <Stof>  well, if we need the presence of other peoples for all subjects, the meeting seems like being a fail today 
     49Feb 10 11:12:51 <jmikola|w>     re: eager response creation, when a controller could have several exit paths, returning redirects, forwards or rendered templates, those would all capitalize on the same response object? 
     50Feb 10 11:13:03 <lsmith>        jmikola|w: yes 
     51Feb 10 11:13:30 *       Herzult ( has left #symfony-dev 
     52Feb 10 11:13:31 <lsmith>        the main reason to do this is for listeners that happen before the controller 
     53Feb 10 11:13:33 *       Herzult ( has joined #symfony-dev 
     54Feb 10 11:13:40 <jmikola|w>     which need to alter the response 
     55Feb 10 11:13:46 <lsmith>        yeah 
     56Feb 10 11:14:12 <lsmith>        with scoping in place now .. 
     57Feb 10 11:14:21 <Seldaek>       it might also fix the fact that right now, the response is in the  prototype scope 
     58Feb 10 11:14:22 <lsmith>        it doesnt seem such a bad idea anymore 
     59Feb 10 11:14:27 <Seldaek>       which honestly is .. I don't know what 
     60Feb 10 11:14:38 <jmikola|w>     Seldaek: that's just using the container as a respone factory :) 
     61Feb 10 11:14:42 <lsmith>        Seldaek: protoype means that you get a fresh instance everytime 
     62Feb 10 11:14:51 <jmikola|w>     per the mailing list, i think the big objection was if request contained a response, is that true? 
     63Feb 10 11:14:59 <Seldaek>       yeah ok, but it should be in the request scope imo 
     64Feb 10 11:15:16 <lsmith>        Seldaek: thats essentially what johanness was proposing 
     65Feb 10 11:15:20 <lsmith>        if its in the request scope 
     66Feb 10 11:15:30 <lsmith>        listeners could make an instance and set stuff on the response 
     67Feb 10 11:15:40 <lsmith>        and when the controller then gets the response 
     68Feb 10 11:15:43 <jmikola|w>     the only thing i can think of if we share a response object in that scope, we might want a method to essentially reset the response 
     69Feb 10 11:15:45 <lsmith>        it would already have stuff set on it 
     70Feb 10 11:16:05 <Stof>  jmikola|w: why resetting the response ? 
     71Feb 10 11:16:31 <jmikola|w>     just thinking how the redirect() convenience methods both sets the location header and content for a meta html redirect 
     72Feb 10 11:16:55 <lsmith>        jmikola|w: sure a reset() might be ok .. 
     73Feb 10 11:17:00 <jmikola|w>     maybe someone has a listener that will set the location header but forget to erase or reset the content 
     74Feb 10 11:17:20 <jmikola|w>     wouldn't really matter if the response code was a 3xx, of course - just thinking aloud 
     75Feb 10 11:17:23 <lsmith>        for the rare cases that you think you need to start over 
     76Feb 10 11:17:53 <lsmith>        do we see any real use case for multiple response instances inside a single (sub)request? 
     77Feb 10 11:17:55 *       gordonslondon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 
     78Feb 10 11:17:58 <jmikola|w>     i think initially, it would make it easy for people to port over code that currently constructs new responses 
     79Feb 10 11:18:03 *       gordonslondon ( has joined #symfony-dev 
     80Feb 10 11:18:33 *       gordonslondon has quit (Read error: No route to host) 
     81Feb 10 11:18:35 <jmikola|w>     ultimately, a request is only going to result in a single response, whether it's sub or master - i can't think of a reason to have multiple responses 
     82Feb 10 11:18:37 *       gordonslondon ( has joined #symfony-dev 
     83Feb 10 11:18:57 <Stof>  I can't neither 
     84Feb 10 11:19:09 <lsmith>        so then its settled :) 
     85Feb 10 11:19:27 <jmikola|w>     there's no pull request for this yet, correct? just ML discussion 
     86Feb 10 11:19:28 <lsmith>        also for the rare case where for some obscure reason you think you do need multiple response's 
     87Feb 10 11:19:40 *       rooster has quit (Remote host closed the connection) 
     88Feb 10 11:19:41 <lsmith>        you can just inherit the default service and set a different scope 
     89Feb 10 11:19:58 <lsmith>        jmikola|w: the pull request is insanley trivial .. change the scope 
     90Feb 10 11:20:09 <lsmith>        well then a couple of listeners could be simplified 
     91Feb 10 11:23:27 <johnwards>     Meeting over? 
     92Feb 10 11:23:39 <lsmith>        johnwards: ask away :) 
     93Feb 10 11:23:52 <unknownbliss>  never started did it? 
     94Feb 10 11:24:12 <Stof>  unknownbliss: well, we discussed two of the points 
     95Feb 10 11:24:26 <Stof>  but most devs are not there today