Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91416
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuTHbsYAXe+J+jrFz+ZeguacEyUxCUpFJE8jMee_5+u_5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kxMuTHbsYAXe+J+jrFz+ZeguacEyUxCUpFJE8jMee_5+u_5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 11:27:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAObuZduDXv=pUP-iQ7FJDEoP7gwCaF6W5HJrD_dB6bQBSd6p_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bae44026c4724052c9c558c
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Callable constructors
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--047d7bae44026c4724052c9c558c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> Hello internals,
>
> I've written a small RFC to make it possible to call constructors of
> objects as a callable, rather than only being able to call them
> through the 'new' language construct.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callableconstructors
>
> After gathering informal feedback for the RFC, one person said that
> they felt it needed more of an emphasis on why it should be
> implemented. I wanted to keep the actual RFC short, in the hope that
> more people would read it in it's entirety, and also wanted to leave
> library specific code out of the RFC. So, as an addendum to the RFC
> text:
>
> I use the Auryn* DIC library. What I've wanted to do, and should be
> able to do in my opinion, is this:
>
> $injector->delegate('FooInterface', 'FooImplementation::__construct');


> Which tells the injector "Whenever something requests an object that
> implements FooInterface as a dependency, just execute the
> FooImplementation constructor to make that object".
>

How is this any better, or what benefit would it provide over the current
implementation, which takes a class name and then calls new on it
when the Interface is asked for?

Moreover, if you want to pass in a callable that creates the class, why not
just create a method on that class called create (or whatever) much the
same way that singletons often work.

--047d7bae44026c4724052c9c558c--