Service definition

[xepozz]

Q	A
Is bugfix?	❌
New feature?	✔️
Breaks BC?	❌
Fixed issues

I'd like to present a new way to configure services:

$b = ServiceDefinition::for(Phone::class)
->constructor(['name' => 'Retro', 'version' => '1.0'])
->set('dev', true)
->set('codeName', 'b')
->call('setId', [42])
->call('setColors', ['yellow']);

It's the same as the configuration with ArrayDefinition:

$b = ArrayDefinition::fromConfig([
ArrayDefinition::CLASS_NAME => Phone::class,
ArrayDefinition::CONSTRUCTOR => ['version' => '2.0'],
'$dev' => true,
'$codeName' => 'b',
'setId()' => [42],
'setColors()' => ['yellow'],
]);

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (4c97eb0) 100.00% compared to head (e1cdb16) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #78 +/- ##
===========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% - Complexity 242 260 +18 
===========================================
Files 16 17 +1 Lines 664 712 +48 ===========================================
+ Hits 664 712 +48 

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
src/ServiceDefinition.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[what-the-diff]

PR Summary

• New file for Service Definition
  A new file titled ServiceDefinition.php has been added. This file contains the implementation of a service definition class, which is crucial for defining the different services our application can offer and how they interact.

[vjik]

It is more correct to compare variants:

// New
ServiceDefinition::for(Phone::class)
->constructor(['name' => 'Retro', 'version' => '1.0'])
->setProperty('$dev', true)
->setProperty('$codeName', 'b')
->callMethod('setId()', [42])
->callMethod('setColors()', ['yellow']);
// Current 
[
'class' => Phone::class,
'__construct()' => ['version' => '2.0'],
'$dev' => true,
'$codeName' => 'b',
'setId()' => [42],
'setColors()' => ['yellow'],
]

For me new variant gives one benefit only:

• autocomplete for constructor and class keys.

Everything else is redundant and only complicates code:

• keys $dev, setId() are understandable by themselves, new syntax added redundant code in the form of methods setProperty() and callMethod(),
• bulk usage ServiceDefinition::for([...]) is greatly litter configuration and it will distract attention when reading configuration.

My opinion is keep current syntax and do not add ServiceDefinition.

[samdark]

@xepozz please check tests.

[samdark]

// New
ServiceDefinition::for(Phone::class)
->constructor(['name' => 'Retro', 'version' => '1.0'])
->set('dev', true)
->set('codeName', 'b')
->call('setId', [42])
->call('setColors', ['yellow']);
// Current 
[
'class' => Phone::class,
'__construct()' => ['version' => '2.0'],
'$dev' => true,
'$codeName' => 'b',
'setId()' => [42],
'setColors()' => ['yellow'],
]

[samdark]

While the syntax is alright, it adds another way to do the same thing which I'm not sure it a good thing.

[Tigrov]

The syntax is great. But as already noted:

1. another way to do what is already there
2. write more characters set, call instead of $, ().

But why not, if somebody likes to write the config in this way. Does it work faster?

[xepozz]

Comparing these two options I like more the first one

[vjik]

Comparing these two options I like more the first one

It's incorrect comparison. Correct so:

// New
ServiceDefinition::for(Phone::class)
->constructor(['version' => '1.0'])
->set('dev', true)
->set('codeName', 'b')
->call('setId', [42])
->call('setColors', ['yellow']);
// Current 
[
'class' => Phone::class,
'__construct()' => ['version' => '2.0'],
'$dev' => true,
'$codeName' => 'b',
'setId()' => [42],
'setColors()' => ['yellow'],
]

---

Also appear problem with configuration merge. With objects it is more difficult in implementation.