-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tried to clarify private services #4656
Conversation
this will result in an inlined instantiation (e.g. ``new PrivateFooBar()``) | ||
inside this other service, making it publicly unavailable at runtime. | ||
What makes private services special, is that they are converted from services | ||
to inlined instantiation (e.g. ``new PrivateThing()``) when they are only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be OK to mention that Symfony does this for performance reasons?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think we have to mention that it is JUST for performance reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
added it
I applied the comments, thanks! |
awesome 👍 |
This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch. Discussion ---------- Tried to clarify private services | Q | A | --- | --- | Doc fix? | yes | New docs? | kind of | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | #4524 It was a though one to describe, as I wanted to make it clear and short. I'm really happy if people can review this and provide other, better, alternatives! Commits ------- d89ad21 Tried to clarify private services
Hi guys! I merged this in, but then realized I wanted to make some changes above these changes and reorganize a few things. Please check out #4748. Thanks! |
This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch. Discussion ---------- Re-reading private service section | Q | A | --- | --- | Doc fix? | yes | New docs? | kind of | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | n/a Hi guys! This follows #4656. I merged that, but then realized that if you read the wider section, the top was still talking about private services as if their benefit was to *not* allow fetching directly (whereas the true emphasis now is on performance, and how `get()` may or may not work. Thanks! Commits ------- 8f5e210 Re-wording based on Wouter's recommendation 0f86a86 [#4656] Re-reading private service section
* 2.3: Re-wording based on Wouter's recommendation update text to use SetHandler (not ProxyPassMatch) cache_csrf_form [Book][Security] Add isPasswordValid doc as in 2.6 [#4656] Re-reading private service section
* 2.5: Re-wording based on Wouter's recommendation update text to use SetHandler (not ProxyPassMatch) cache_csrf_form [Book][Security] Add isPasswordValid doc as in 2.6 [#4656] Re-reading private service section
* 2.7: Re-wording based on Wouter's recommendation update text to use SetHandler (not ProxyPassMatch) cache_csrf_form [Book][Security] Add isPasswordValid doc as in 2.6 [#4656] Re-reading private service section Update code example to fit description
It was a though one to describe, as I wanted to make it clear and short. I'm really happy if people can review this and provide other, better, alternatives!