Skip to content
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

Update fatfree-core to use the top level vendor namespace F3. Refs #110 #112

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sgpinkus
Copy link
Contributor

Update fatfree core to use the top level vendor namespace F3. Refs #110. Required following refactoring most of which was automatable:

  • Add namespace F3 to all top level files programatically, and amend the namespace of files that already had a namespace to include prefix F3.
  • Replace all relative refs to non F3 classes in the to level with absolute refs.
  • Amend all absolute refs to F3 class in non top level classes.
  • Minor touch up to autoloader - use require_once() not require().
  • Fix some implicit refs to non prefixed namespaces in Preview::token().
  • The sample app and test at /bcosca/fatfree will have to be updated. Already done sucessfully. Will push shortly.

…3-factory#110. Required following refactoring most of which was automatable:

  * Add `namespace F3` to all top level files programatically, and amend the namespace of files that already had a namespace to include prefix `F3`.
  * Replace all relative refs to non F3 classes in the to level with absolute refs.
  * Amend all absolute refs to F3 class in non top level classes.
  * Minor touch up to autoloader - use require_once() not require().
  * Fix some implicit refs to non prefixed namespaces in Preview::token().
  * The sample app and test at /bcosca/fatfree will have to be updated. Already done sucessfully. Will push shortly.
@mstaack
Copy link

mstaack commented Jan 18, 2016

@bcosca any infos about this PR and F3 PSR4 compability?

@ikkez ikkez added the v4 label Jan 18, 2016
@bcosca
Copy link
Collaborator

bcosca commented Jan 19, 2016

No go until v4 comes around due to backward compatibility. I suggest we open up a different branch for this as a bridge version.

@sgpinkus
Copy link
Contributor Author

👍. All tests passed, but a branch would be great to get this change some real life testing. I would start using that upstream branch if you created one.

Why not create a dev branch? I think it will be hard to merge these changes with other development branches that are running in parallel, since they would be working without namespaces, so may as well start dev branch here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants