Better mapping configuration
- Member | 88
I often need in bigger project use more usable mapping configuration. Two stars are not enough.
In last project I need use more complicated module structure while maintaining PSR but with actual mapping implementation it was not possible.
I think that would be better when mapping works with module and presenter name instead of stars.
<presenter>(or any better keywords) in mapping would be better
2) The best would be if it were possible to number the modules
Result presenter class: App\Three\One\TwoModule\Four
I tried implement (1
and 2) into last project as test.
Example is here
My implementation is not good, but it was necessary and work with is quite good.
I would like to see something similar in nette and what are your opinoins?
Edit: module name with number was really wrong idea
Last edited by Budry (2014-06-23 18:33)
- Member | 94
Custom mappers for
PresenterFactory could help instead of just
convention written in code. It would reduce PresenterFactory complexity and
enable cheap way of changing its behaviour since nobody really wants to
implement it again. It would be very simillar to DatabaseReflection concept.
Last edited by mishak (2014-06-23 16:21)