This a b/c break and have to be rebased to 5.0 as soon as the branch is available.

Another question is, is it really required in all CMSApplicationInterface ? I mean till now this was not a problem it seems.

As I understand it, the router is web specific, so it belongs in the CMSWebApplicationInterface. If you really think you need the router in a CLI applications, that CLI application should just implement the CMSWebApplicationInterface.

Creating an url is not web specific, only the url itself. With #36332 it is possible to generate site links in console applications. When you force a cli application to be a web application then you have to deal with menu stuff.

Creating an url is not web specific, only the url itself. With #36332 it is possible to generate site links in console applications. When you force a cli application to be a web application then you have to deal with menu stuff.

However, it still does not make sense to "pollute" all CMS applications with the router (and wait for 5.0 to solve the issue). Is there no possibility to a) instantiate the router in the application itself or better b) use the DI container for it?

I guess this is really a relict from the beginning. As for now the router is very much disconnected from the application, so it indeed makes sense to make the router available independent of the application. I would start with a router factory which can be injected to get a router instance from. What do you think? This can be even done in 4 and we can deprecate the whole getRouter stuff.

I would start with a router factory which can be injected to get a router instance from. What do you think? This can be even done in 4 and we can deprecate the whole getRouter stuff.

That actually sounds like a clean and sustainable solution to me.

@wilsonge what do you think, should we start deprecated getRouter in favor of a factory?

I don’t really see what value a factory is giving you. If you wanna go that way just store it in the container directly and be done with it?

Perhaps factory was the wrong word, better would be a registry. But yeah could also be to inject the router directly instead of a registry(factory). I need to play with it.

Closing in favor of #36688.