fixed typo
merged branch bamarni/patch-3 (PR #5125)

Commits
-------

f84f5fd fixed typo

Discussion
----------

fixed typo
[Routing] Add an interface for configuring strict_parameters
merged branch vicb/lenient_generator (PR #5114)

Commits
-------

03bbaaf [Routing] Add an interface for configuring strict_parameters

Discussion
----------

[RFC][Routing] Add an interface for configuring strict_parameters

This is a proposal to fix #4697 (related to #4592).

The main point left to discuss was the name of the interface, which is now `LenientInterface`. We could change the name to anything else is someone has a better idea.

@stof @Tobion what do you think ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by stof at 2012-07-30T16:34:20Z

@vicb I already said I had no idea to name it, and it has not changed. :)
So let's wait for other people to see if they have a better idea

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by breerly at 2012-07-30T16:38:38Z

Maybe `PermissibleInterface` or `PermissiveInterface`.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Partugal at 2012-07-30T17:00:09Z

`StrictUrlGeneratorInterface`, `StrictParametersInterface` or `StrictInterface`

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by pborreli at 2012-07-30T17:04:46Z

:+1: for `PermissiveInterface`

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by stof at 2012-07-30T17:07:59Z

yes, because the Router currently can only use this interface to set it to ``not-strict``. It assumes that the url generator is already strict by default (which is probably a bad assumption btw as the base class for the generated generator can be changed)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by pborreli at 2012-07-30T17:09:33Z

@stof thx, got it

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Partugal at 2012-07-30T17:10:03Z

this interface realize setting Strict by setStrictParameters, and get by getStrictParameters, and imho named it by `Strictable` is more logic

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by pborreli at 2012-07-30T17:11:07Z

@Partugal let's try to find an english term :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Partugal at 2012-07-30T17:11:31Z

)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by breerly at 2012-07-30T17:15:23Z

@Partugal I like using "able" in interface names because it describes a behavior instead of a noun. This type of naming makes following the Interface Segregation Principle easy to follow. Good work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by vicb at 2012-07-30T18:24:26Z

As explained by @stof I did not consider `StrictInterface` because as of now the interface is used to disabled the strict bevahior (which is enabled by default).

I am not satisfied with `PermissiveInterface` / `LenientInterface` because implementing this interface does not mean that the generator will be permissive but only that the behavior is configurable - yes I did consider `Configurable` but the term is a too vague.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by breerly at 2012-07-30T18:35:45Z

I see. Perhaps ```StrictConfigurableInterface``` would do the trick.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Tobion at 2012-07-30T21:02:21Z

I think renaming strict_parameters to `strict_requirements` is the way to go because it determines how requirements are handled when generating a URL. Also we should allow another option:
strict_requirements = true: throw exception for mismatching requirements
strict_requirements = null: return null as URL for mismatching requirements and log it.
strict_requirements = false: return the URL with the given parameters without checking the requirements and don't log it.
(Maybe use constants for these).
The Interface I would then call `ConfigurableRequirementsInterface` or `RequirementsHandlingInterface`.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by vicb at 2012-07-31T07:23:24Z

Thanks all for the feeback, this is what is now implemented:

- A `ConfigurableRequirementsInterface` that should be implemented by generators that can be configure not to throw an exception when the parameters do not match the requirements,
- The interface has two methods: `setStrictRequirements()` and `isStrictRequirements()`,
- `setStrictRequirements()` always gets called to configure the generator (whatever the option value is)

Note: The Router option name has not changed (i.e. `strict_parameters`)

Does that fit everyone ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by vicb at 2012-07-31T07:39:22Z

So the option name is now consistent (`strict_requirements`) with the interface. We should sync the change [in the standard edition](https://github.com/symfony/symfony-standard/blob/master/app/config/config.yml#L11) if we agree to merge this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by fabpot at 2012-07-31T07:51:47Z

@vicb you forgot to rename the property in `UrlGenerator` as @stof mentioned above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by vicb at 2012-07-31T07:59:57Z

@fabpot fixed. If the code is ok, I'll squash the commits and open a PR on symfony-standard