init:bundle => bundle:init#125

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Closed

Seldaek wants to merge1 commit intosymfony:masterfromSeldaek:initbundle

Closed

init:bundle => bundle:init#125

Seldaek wants to merge1 commit intosymfony:masterfromSeldaek:initbundle

Conversation

Copy link

Member

Seldaek commentedFeb 27, 2011

This should be merged if/whensymfony/symfony#117 is merged

Updated init commands

e28e4c1

Copy link

Contributor

kriswallsmith commentedFeb 27, 2011

I would rather keep theinit: namespace and and the following commands to it:

init:front-controller for creating front controllers in your web directory (I will send a PR for this)
init:container-extension for bootstrapping a DIC extension
init:core-bootstrap what's currently in the sandbox's 'build_bootstrap.php` script

I think it makes sense to group all code-generation commands under a common namespace to raise their visibility to the beginning user.

Copy link

MemberAuthor

Yeah, I thought of that too, but it's semantically incorrect WRT the other commands (as said insymfony/symfony#117). And if we add other stuff to bundle, like bundle:enable for example. Then you'd have init:bundle and bundle:enable, which would suck. I agree with youfor now but I think grouping by resource type is more future-proof.