Allows multiple calls to Volt::mount()

[inmanturbo]

See https://github.com/livewire/volt/issues/87

With this PR all three of the following examples yield the same result:

  /**
   * Bootstrap services.
   */
  public function boot(): void
  {
      Volt::mount(
          config('livewire.view_path', resource_path('views/livewire')),
      );

      Volt::mount(
          resource_path('views/pages'),
      );
  }

Volt::mount([
    config('livewire.view_path', resource_path('views/livewire')),
    resource_path('views/pages'),
]);

Volt::mount([
    config('livewire.view_path', resource_path('views/livewire')),
]);

Volt::mount([
    resource_path('views/pages'),
]);

This means that packages can mount their own components, and developers can use them without having to include them in their VoltServiceProvider.

Laravel is known for "Batteries Included" packages which require very little setup to get started!

Some points to consider:

• Package developers should use unique and descriptive names for their blade files
• Blade files by the same name loaded by an app`s provider take precedent over paths loaded by packages

I've included some tests to ensure that Volt::mount() is loading these paths into memory correctly.

[taylorotwell]

Thanks for your pull request to Laravel!

Unfortunately, I'm going to delay merging this code for now. To preserve our ability to adequately maintain the framework, we need to be very careful regarding the amount of code we include.

If possible, please consider releasing your code as a package so that the community can still take advantage of your contributions!

If you feel absolutely certain that this code corrects a bug in the framework, please "@" mention me in a follow-up comment with further explanation so that GitHub will send me a notification of your response.

[inmanturbo]

@taylorotwell I honestly find this behavior odd and it feels buggy, but I could be wrong about the intent. Currently, vendors can easily depend on volt, mount an unpublished directory in a service provider and it will work fine, but only as long as the developer using the package never calls Volt::mount() to mount a directory of their own at app level! This seems pretty strange and could be confusing to newcomers, and requires a few extra steps and instructions to get them going with a package that depends on volt.

Also, volt is often used in concert with folio, and folio allows you to call Folio::route() as many times as you like, without overriding all your previous calls. This means packages can easily supply and serve (unpublished) views from their own repositories, however as it stands there is some added difficulty trying to sprinkle in a some volt along with it.

At the very least, are you opposed to us revisiting this again sometime after L11 is released, or is it just not right for volt at all?

Thanks for your time!

EDIT: Come to think of it, from a package provider one could easily use lifecycle methods to make the mount call come later, then merge in any paths already mounted. I guess it's fine like it is. Sorry for the noise.