Add in some easy to use DI about kickasscommerce

[dmanners]

So my initial thought here is the new "cool" kids on the block https://packagist.org/packages/bitexpert/disco would be good for this. They have a psr-11 version which is the hottest of beep.

[dmanners]

Hmm ok but is ease of use really more important than the name?

[shochdoerfer]

If you do not end up using a DI container that does some auto-wiring magic, you will end up with a lot of configuration code anyways, may it be PHP code, XML, YAML or something else.

In Disco you would need one configuration method per dependency that needs to be managed by the DI container. Currently we only support one configuration to avoid clashing method names. You can however use traits to structure your configuration and for example maintain a module specific configuration. Usually you do not need many "global" dependencies like database connectors. In a lot of cases you could simply focus on the configuration trait available in the module your are working in.

Does that make sense to you? Maybe this presentation about Disco will give you some more insights.

[shochdoerfer]

@sandermangel sure, not a problem at all. If you need some more insights or a demo ping me. Happy to help.

[adam-paterson]

@shochdoerfer, no problem at all. We haven't decided on a DI library yet but I've used Disco before, I simply want to play around with DICE to see which is the best fit for the project.

[sandermangel]

I looked a bit around and http://php-di.org/ does have ease of use.
Disco can probably do more but the whole syntax does have quite a learning curve, php-di seems to do stuff automagically based on the type-hint

[shochdoerfer]

Being the driving force behind Disco I might be a bit biased ;)

For regular use cases Disco is not that complicated to learn: Add a method to a config class, add the @bean annotation and you are good to go. Most of the DI containers out there do not really solve the DI problem, internally in the configuration they are used as service locators which comes with its own problems - technically you depend on a string rather than a concrete type, no explicit type checking possible etc. This is a problem that Disco solves.

In case you think Disco is too complicated to learn I would love to get some ideas how we could simplify things to make it more "usable".

[sandermangel]

@shochdoerfer thanks for explaining the vision behind it. I like that!
What I'm curious about, and forgive my absolute lack of knowledge on DI, is in my mind most classes and methods need dependencies.
Wont' that give us tons of config classes with methods and a lot of places you need to configure stuff in order to inject your own dependencies?

[sandermangel]

@shochdoerfer I think I need to spent some sunday afternoon on this. thanks for explaining :)

[sandermangel]

Recommended by Vinai we have another candidate: https://github.com/Level-2/Dice

[sandermangel]

So, another twist: DI via Factories. Not using containers (see pumpkins and lizards code)

[adam-paterson]

Dice looks really good. I'm going to self assign this one and try DICE out. Unless @dmanners has made any progress.

[shochdoerfer]

@adam-paterson if it isn't too much extra work I would love to get some insights if and what makes Disco compared to Dice hard to use for your use-case.