search

container-interop / definition-interop

[EXPERIMENTAL] Promoting container interoperability through standard definitions
MIT License
19 stars 2 forks source link

Rename namespace #17

Open Anahkiasen opened 8 years ago

Anahkiasen commented 8 years ago

This is a small matter but since service definitions aren't necessarily related to containers anymore, it might be a good idea to rename the namespace from Interop\Container\Definition to just Interop\Definition since Interop already acts as vendor namespace. What do you think?

mnapoli commented 8 years ago

Those are container definitions though? I.e. they are not service definitions, they define how to create a service, which is what a container do (the service can exist without those definitions).

Anahkiasen commented 8 years ago

What I mean is you could very much provide an implementation of definition-interop that doesn't rely on containers. Like, there is nothing specific to containers in the definitions themselves, they just define how to create and manipulate services. Even more now that we don't have the concept of identifier anymore.

Per example you could have a factory package of sorts that accepts a definition and returns the created instance, without a container, just, returns the translated definitions. I'm not saying containers isn't the main purpose of this PSR mind you, just, it could be seen as limiting the scope of what is possible when in actuality all the definitions do is describe method calls and assignments, which can have much broader purposes.

I do understand on the other hand if you would rather only describe this PSR as being related to container to avoid misuse though, would be also understandable.