> We should keep module configs separated from module bootstrap. Because there
> are cases when we have module configs and NO bootstrap.... Maybe one module
> it needs to add one more database, but no other things to bootstrap... So
> would be just configs...
Problem with no bootstrap would be that it is required as it runs the
resources (correct me if I am wrong), so just config only would never
be run, you would have to tell the main Zend_Application instance
about them somehow....
I like your ideas from your previous post, keeping it all separated
into modules makes sense. I agree on the default module.
>
> keith Pope wrote:
>>
>> Could you have:
>>
>> class Blog_Bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Module_Bootstrap
>> {
>> protected $_config = 'blog.ini';
>> }
>>
>> Where if $_config is null no loading is done, else we get the options.
>> This way would we not lose the lookup cost? Also the db table classes
>> work in a similar way when you define table names so people should be
>> used to this convention.
>>
>> Also I assume this would fix the problem of having to treat the
>> default module differently from the other modules?
>>
>> Thx
>>
>> Keith
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Cristian Bichis
> www.zftutorials.com | www.zfforums.com | www.zftalk.com | www.zflinks.com
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[MuTe]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
没有评论:
发表评论