Proposal: Add priorities feature to handlers #645
Conversation
|
Any feedback dear maintainers? 😉 |
|
Hi, this will be definitively added, in this days im busy with the 2.0 release on the serializer, give me some time but will be done! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First of all thanks for the PR and apologies if the review took to long.
I have only one change to request as expressed in the comment.
If you remove the special case for the jms priority, a lot of this pr can be simplified, no need for custom autoloader entry, the fixture can stay in the normal test namespace and so on.
Great contribution, thanks!
| foreach ($container->findTaggedServiceIds($tagName, true) as $serviceId => $attributes) { | ||
| $definition = $container->getDefinition($serviceId); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!isset($attributes[0]['priority'])) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
prefer to keep this simpler without special cases. if the priority is not set, just set it to 0. users can still control priorities by adding their services by using negative priorities
|
I did the changes by my self in 7bf1ea3 Thanks for the contribution! |
|
Thanks @goetas! I am really happy to see that landed :-) |
As a response to #642, #641 and #466 I prepared a proposal of change/feature in this regard, which should improve DX and let developers avoid confusion or similar problems in future.
What these changes introduce:
jms_serializer.handlerandjms_serializer.subscribing_handlertags a priority attributeCustomHandlersPassis loading handlers respecting order based on priorities100(ones fromJMS\Serializernamespace)0(will override standard ones by default)