Provides a SessionFactoryInterface #40184
Conversation
e7f5636 to
ed2dcb8
Compare
|
Should we add an autowiring alias for it? |
ed2dcb8 to
b6e65ab
Compare
No strong opinion about this. I added the alias (and also an alias for |
|
I'm mixed here. This looks mostly internal. Yes, we should allow ppl to write their factory, but tight coupling via inheritance doesn't look that bad. I'm not sure about the autowiring aliases. Why would ppl need these as "tools" in their apps? |
|
I don't think we need that interface. The session factory encapsulates the boilerplate that we need when working with the session storage factory. I don't think that anyone would need a different implementation of the session factory because it's the storage factory that can and should be replaced instead. In #39634 we've decided not to add an interface for the lock factory and I personally don't see a reason to decide differently for the session factory. |
|
My comment was mostly challenging the usefulness of such an interface: if we don't want people to type-hint against it, then I don't think we need it either. |
|
An interface for a factory always sounds suspicious to me :) |
When working on the documentation for the deprecated
session.storageservice, I realized that (https://github.com/symfony/symfony-docs/pull/14981/files#diff-b16540b9555d18f5dcf58902701dc1aa291887390fe5e8401478a4d36f121df2) people may need to override the SessionFactory.This PR adds a interface to make things cleaner.