[#32969] - [4.x] Inject installer via service provider
- Closed
- 14 Apr 2021
- Medium
- Build: 4.0-dev
- Draft PR
- # 32969
- Diff
- astridx:refactconsole
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue # #31524 (comment).
Summary of Changes
Inject the installer the same way as the database.
@laoneo Was that what you meant in your comment, and @wilsonge is that how it's generally intended ? Then I would standardize it in all places for the CLI.
Testing Instructions
Code review
Additional Questions
I realized while working on this PR, that the container is not in the Joomla Repo but in the Framework. Should not the framework be unified with the Joomla CMS in version 4? The roadmap includes this text:
The power of the Joomla Framework merged into the CMS
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Libraries |
| Title |
|
||||||
| Title |
|
||||||
I would even go one step further and make the installer a service provider. So you can load in the Console service provider the installer from the installer service provider.
I would even go one step further and make the installer a service provider. So you can load in the Console service provider the installer from the installer service provider.
I mean I think for Installer that might be a step to far as there's no way to reset all the extension data stored in all it's private/protected properties when installing an extension... (i mean generically speaking I agree)
To me this is in about the right place.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Closed |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2021-04-14 06:50:10 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | astridx | |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
Why did you close? @wilsonge and me were just discussing about this line https://github.com/joomla/joomla-cms/pull/32969/files#diff-7229d3e3025f6259363b5b58ccfc54d9408edd528e0683f18b1fe2f072c24675R171
What exactly are you discussing regarding this line?
That this can be also a service provider which offers an installer so you don't have to create an instance of the installer by yourself. The rest is absolutely fine and should come into 4.0.
I mean I think for Installer that might be a step to far as there's no way to reset all the extension data stored in all it's private/protected properties when installing an extension... (i mean generically speaking I agree)
To me this is in about the right place.
I understand @wilsonge so, that he seems that this might be a step to far and it is fine like it is currently?
In this comment #32969 (comment) he quoted my comment. @wilsonge can you shed some light into this one?
Interesting, I had moments ago raised this one about this cli command... #32967