Comments on: Introducing Bucket: A Minimal Dependency Injection Container for PHP

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:42:45 +0000

I must also agree with Joshua! The symfony di container is all I have been using in my projects with perfect success. Make you finish reading all of fabpots articles to see the full system actually come together.

By: Troels Knak-Nielsen

Troels Knak-Nielsen — Tue, 12 May 2009 09:05:33 +0000

Honestly, I didn’t take any offence from the first comment by Joshua. The web is full of libraries and frameworks and so it’s hard to be an expert in all of them before making a choice. I might have been too quick to write off sfServiceContainer; I’ll definitely take a second look.

If there’s something that’s a “real” product, under active development that people can use, it’d be worth mentioning in the tutorial itself – that way people won’t be stuck with Bucket

I think it’s feature complete – There’s nothing more to add to it. That doesn’t mean that you’re stuck in any way, since you can add whatever complicated factory you want on the backend. In the slightly larger perspective, DI-containers have the very fortunate attribute to them that they are easy to replace. By definition, the application level code has no knowledge about the container, so the only coupling there is, is in the configuration.

By: kira8080

kira8080 — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:42:16 +0000

The problem might have been the tone you used to suggest it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:51:38 +0000

@Paul: I didn’t mean it like that at all.

If there’s something that’s a “real” product, under active development that people can use, it’d be worth mentioning in the tutorial itself – that way people won’t be stuck with Bucket (assuming, of course, that its lifespan is roughly only as long as the tutorial itself)

I’ve got no real problem that the tutorial has a lightweight implementation though, you know?

Or, seemingly more on your level, “how dare I suggest that there’s another tool for the job – sharing knowledge about products and tools should be outlawed!”

By: Paul Annesley

Paul Annesley — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:18:55 +0000

Josh: yeah, stick it to him. How dare somebody write a lightweight library that suits their needs and then publish it for the world to share. Without even first scouring the internet to find something they can bend into shape. The nerve *tuts*

By: Troels Knak-Nielsen

Troels Knak-Nielsen — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:00:03 +0000

@Joshua I admit I only looked at the documentation for it. Maybe I should give it another go. The YAML/XML configuration scared me away, as well as the sf prefix on the classes. Pake also used to be decoupled from Symfony, but is now tightly integrated into it. That makes me a bit suspicious, although it might just be me being paranoid.

By: Joshua May

Joshua May — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:34:52 +0000

So, I take it when you were at fabpot’s github, you completely missed his “real” DI container? See: http://github.com/fabpot/dependency-injection/tree/master

It’s none of the things you’re worried about – it’s completely decoupled from a framework (by design, though it shares symfony’s name), it’s stable, it’s maintained, and it’s super easy to configure (YAML is love!)

Have a bit more of a read about it here: http://fabien.potencier.org/article/13/introduction-to-the-symfony-service-container

Unless I’m missing something, I think it’s pretty much ideal.