? Success

User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:

avatar wilsonge wilsonge - open - 23 Mar 2014
avatar wilsonge wilsonge - change - 23 Mar 2014
Title
Refactor $this->out in JApplicationCli to give more flexability using the Joomla Framework
[#33510] [feature] Refactor $this->out in JApplicationCli to give more flexability using the Joomla Framework
avatar wilsonge wilsonge - change - 23 Mar 2014
The description was changed
Title
Refactor $this->out in JApplicationCli to give more flexability using the Joomla Framework
[#33510] [feature] Refactor $this->out in JApplicationCli to give more flexability using the Joomla Framework
Description <p>This is fully b/c I hope!!</p> <p><a href="http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&amp;tracker_item_id=33510&amp;start=0">http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&amp;tracker_item_id=33510&amp;start=0</a><br> This is fully b/c I hope!!</p>
Labels Added: ? ?
avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 23 Mar 2014

I think it would be a good idea to bite the bullet and add a composer.json file to the CMS and bring in dependencies that way (and that paves the way for the CMS to use other packages from other vendors).

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 23 Mar 2014

I think it would be a good idea too :P But I really would like to avoid if possible doing it in this PR. In part because I wanna keep this to the feature and get it in in time for 3.3. But more in part because I'm a coward and I don't want to be responsible if I balls it all up :D

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Don and I have branches that already attempt it. I agree, leave it off for 3.3 but I strongly believe we need to be pushing to remove the 3.5 cap on the 3.x series of the CMS. I know the PLT is working on a plan so hopefully it won't be too long before that comes out for public comment. Then we can do these things in feature rather than calendar increments.

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

:+1: sounds like a plan to me :) My other issue is working out the workflow. In many apps you just call the composer install on download but obviously in the CMS that won't be the case. Also for example you take the full application package then your also implicitly autoloading the Input, Event, Session, String, Registry, Uri, Filesystem and PSR log package :P Which is significantly more than the half a package I'm adding lol

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Yes I understand. What if you moved all the JF files into the likely
"future" location, but we just don't use Composer. That is, move DI and
your file to `/vendor/joomla-framework/..."?

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

It seems like a good compromise to me :) How does that look?

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

I guess this is where we start going down the rabbit hole.

The path for the CLI tools will look something like /vendor/joomla/application/src/Cli/.... The path for DI will be /vendor/joomla/di/src/....

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Well as we're not using PSR-4 yet can we use src yet? I'm not sure that would still work with the JLoader functions we have (haven't tested this hypothesis however)

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

I think our loader can cope with it as long as you include the full path,
and you'll have to register each package. I think:


JLoader::registerNamespace('Joomla', JPATH_ROOT .
'/vendor/joomla/application/src');


JLoader::registerNamespace('Joomla', JPATH_ROOT . '/vendor/joomla/di/src');


will work?

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Ah, that won't work. Ok, just leave the files where they were and
we'll fix it later.

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

What so in the vendor path or in the libraries/framework path?

avatar eddieajau
eddieajau - comment - 24 Mar 2014

I think put the files back under /libraries/framework for now and we'll
sort out Composer another time. Sorry for the distraction.

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Nah no worries! It was worth a shot!

avatar wilsonge
wilsonge - comment - 24 Mar 2014

Right reverted the vendor commit - lets just run with this as is :)

avatar mbabker mbabker - reference | bdd83db - 1 Apr 14
avatar mbabker mbabker - merge - 1 Apr 2014
avatar mbabker mbabker - close - 1 Apr 2014
avatar mbabker mbabker - change - 1 Apr 2014
Status New Closed
Closed_Date 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2014-04-01 23:41:58
avatar mbabker mbabker - close - 1 Apr 2014
avatar wilsonge wilsonge - head_ref_deleted - 2 Apr 2014
avatar mbabker mbabker - reference | 98b0ca2 - 2 Apr 14
avatar mbabker mbabker - reference | 713eb5c - 2 Apr 14
avatar Bakual Bakual - reference | 2f401fe - 12 May 14
avatar Bakual Bakual - reference | cf4fcf6 - 12 May 14
avatar Bakual Bakual - reference | aa7c37b - 12 May 14

Add a Comment

Login with GitHub to post a comment