merge 2.x to 3.x #649
merge 2.x to 3.x #649
Conversation
| Custom HTTP Request Factory | ||
| --------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| The proxy client uses an implementation of ``Http\Message\RequestFactory`` to create HTTP requests. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is different for FOSHttpCache v3 (it changed to Psr\Http\Message\RequestFactoryInterface) but v3 of the bundle supports v2 and v3 of the lib. How do we properly document that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point. i actually don't see value in keeping to support FOSHttpCache 2.x with the 3.x bundle. both have the same minimum PHP version, so there is no good argument to use different major versions.
i will adjust accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, and we also added a psr-17 stream factory optional argument. for consistency we should support that as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, and we also added a psr-17 stream factory optional argument. for consistency we should support that as well.
Should I create a PR for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FriendsOfSymfony/FOSHttpCache#595 for improving the phpdoc vor FOSHttpCache 3.x
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks. i already committed it in this branch :-D
| Custom HTTP Request Factory | ||
| --------------------------- | ||
|
|
||
| The proxy client uses an implementation of ``Http\Message\RequestFactory`` to create HTTP requests. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ | |||
| public="true"> | |||
| <argument type="service" id="fos_http_cache.proxy_client.varnish.http_dispatcher"/> | |||
| <argument>%fos_http_cache.proxy_client.varnish.options%</argument> | |||
| <argument /> <!-- request factory --> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could use a new Symfony 5.1 feature here: https://symfony.com/blog/new-in-symfony-5-1-abstract-service-arguments
I don't know what your strategy with this this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah right, that is a thing now. but as null is a valid argument here, i would keep this as is.
No description provided.