Namespace fix #6687
Namespace fix #6687
Conversation
|
👍 in the book we should always use AppBundle (in the components doc it's a different story). Thanks @JhonnyL. Status: reviewed |
|
👎 This section is about placing file service configuration inside a bundle. This isn't usefull for the AppBundle at all, it's meant for bundles that have to be shared. This is why we used another bundle name here. Thinking about this, I think we might would want to remove this section from the book chapter (it's document in the Bundles section of the cookbook already). We can then discuss the If you agree, can you maybe make these changes? Status: Needs Work |
|
@wouterj Ok, so I should remove the section Importing Configuration via Container Extensions all together. What about the changes in Using the Expression Language, those are valid right? Also, does it really add any value to use different service ids for those examples? |
|
On second thought, let's first merge this PR as is and then remove/rewrite some parts of the book article to make it shorter: 👍
No, it doesn't. I think we updated everything to the best practices on the 2.3 version, but we forgot to do it for the expression language stuff (which was added in a newer version). It would be great if you can also change the service ID name. |
|
Status: reviewed |
This PR was merged into the 2.7 branch. Discussion ---------- Namespace fix Makes the namespace consistent with other examples in the article. Commits ------- d7bc2e4 Fix namespace
Makes the namespace consistent with other examples in the article.