Change "Facade" to "Surrogate" #3835
Conversation
|
I told you we would make a documentation change. Not a code change. |
|
This is not backwards compatible, it would break all packages that extend the facade class. |
|
To elaborate on the craziness that will certainly follow this request. I have specifically said we are not making a code change to rename this right now, and that I would consider it on a following major release, but probably still won't make the change. We certainly won't make the change based on demands from outside our community. Secondly, this is not backwards compatible, as it totally deletes a class some users may already be extending. Edit: correction. It is backwards compatible. However, still see no need to make this change, as I've stated before. Certainly not from demands from those outside of the Laravel community. |
|
No further pull request attempts to rename facades should be made. They will be rejected. |
|
Oh god. These idiots still going on about this? No wonder other programming communities look down on PHP. It's a word. Which fits the definition of what it is doing. |
|
It is in fact backwards-compatible; I have added a new test here to prove that assertion: https://github.com/pmjones/framework/blob/4.1/tests/Support/SupportSurrogateTest.php#L20-L24 I would update the range if I could; I'll make another pull request for you to refuse on the record, if you like. |
|
@pmjones why not just focus on your own framework and leave us laravel developers in peace |
|
I have stated on Twitter and on Reddit multiple times we are not making this change. |
|
This image sums up everyone who wants this word changed. |
|
Here to support @pmjones and freedom of speech 👶 |
|
How ironic. |
|
I know you meant it because you can name or use the word you want and misinform. But like a good sect is not based on reason and forbids incoming exhortations. I meant it because GitHub is a free world and so it is FOSS. |
|
Stop making words, you're bad at it. |
|
@pmjones That PR has "facade" throughout, anyway, so it's not even a consistent change. This is a term issue that the community needs to consider. Is it worth migrating to a new term? If so, how and when should the change be introduced? What coordination issues are involved? Should it come at a full version change, etc.? The code, itself, is likely the least complicated part. They have a conference in NYC in May where I'm certain the issue will come up and they can talk about all the factors and pro's/con's involved. Meanwhile, you have a framework of your own to work on and a community to build. Focus there, I'd say! ;-) |
|
Not the issue won't come up at the conference unless we laugh at it. I'll slap anyone that takes it serious. |
|
Does this mean Laravel uses parts of my house? Btw. we shouldn't call them Surrogate, Bruce Willis is going to destroy them in the future. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986263/ |
|
Come brothers, @pmjones has shown us the light of the way. |
|
I just hope for the sake of laravel reputation that they come to senses whenever. @pmjones is an old saga but he shows he never stops learning. Sad that some chose to otherwise. |
|
Best I can do, I'm a programmer not a photoshop wizard. |
|
TIL more: I am not learning because the word I use correctly I don't use the same as someone else wants to use it because he thinks it has one meaning and thus cannot be used for anything else. I must have stopped learning years ago. Thanks for the heads up @cordoval |
|
Come on Bennet, lets party! |
|
I built an address book once, it had a |
@pmjones This is just a way for you to show the Laravel community will reject your PR? You knew it wouldn' t be accepted so you invested time creating the PR for the sole purpose of showing it be rejected? I'm at a loss. All that does is create ill will and wastes time. |
|
No, I created because I want to give @taylorotwell the benefit of the doubt. I didn't invest three hours for it not to go through, but to show it could be done, and in a backwards-compatible way. The ball is in his court; if he wants to reject it out-of-hand, it's up to him. At this point I have done what I can. |
|
@pmjones Well, you knew he was not going to take it because he said he would only entertain documentation changes at this time, previous to you creating it. You are exceptionally bright, so, I think you did invest the time knowing it would not go through. Best to stop now. Allow the community time to consider the term usage themselves and decide what's best. Extend a little grace, please. |
|
The community doesn't decide anything. Taylor does. And he has already, multiple times, decided on the issue (well the non issue, since it is being used correctly). And even said it wasn't going to happen before this PR was done. And 3 hours? Really? You have to be master troll. I bow to you. Teach me your ways. |
|
@robclancy You do not help the Laravel community with the way you act. Many times, people have pointed at your comments and blamed Taylor. Stop. |
|
I think I won't listen to you. You only show up for drama anyway. Much like @pmjones is only here to start it to get more eyes on his stuff. Then brandon ebooks site to make more drama go there. All these hidden agendas. Then there is me. Just enjoying idiots :) |
|
@robclancy I don't think you listen to anyone and it creates problems for those you are trying to protect whether you stick your fingers in your ears and hum or you hear it. Whether the community accepts @pmjones idea, or not, is completely within the right of the community. No one needs to force their ideas on anyone but no one needs to mock someone sharing, either. |
|
Two though processes here: First, argumentative: Using the provided definition for facade from @pmjones :
Let's say I decide to build a shiny new Stripe package since I don't like the one they provide. I will need to use the HTTP API that they provide. So, now what? I don't want to work with curl directly, so I pull in Guzzle to handle that. So I hack away for a day or two and build a package, and yes, this includes a facade for Laravel. What did I just do? I created a class that performs a task. It has a well defined API to interact with while dealing with another messier one (in this case, even Guzzle is a Facade since it is a nice API to interact with curl.) Does this situation not fit the definition of a Facade? You have a subsystem (in this case Guzzle and curl) which you build a class to interact with neatly. So where does this fail to be a facade? Second, general not giving a crap: So, let's just say without arguing, that; Yes, you are absolutely correct in Laravel's use of the term Facade is wrong. So what? We call AJAX what it is, but we interact with it primary through something called an XMLHttpRequest. Why is this? Well, back when it was being done, someone in charge of IE had a thing for XML, so if that was in the name, it was more likely to get done. (While this exact thing is a bit more intricate that what information is provided here, the base point should still get across.) Base point, things change based on what developers decide. Who says Facade was really properly defined 100% at its creation? Who says what Laravel is doing is not a facade in any fashion? Semantics change over time, it is humans that give words their definitions. Just as we change what booty means from being a term for a treasure stash back a few hundred years ago to meaning an ass in modern tongue, the definitions of software architecture can change over time. We make mistakes and we also evolve. You are saying the current definitions are absolutely solid and should be respected exactly. Well, I say no. Laravel is now appearing to be the largest PHP project. And you are saying somehow one of its fundamental features is absolutely wrong. Well, if it is, obviously no one cares. If you think it is such an appalling mistake, then do it better. Show exactly how it is wrong. build a system, show how it is done the "right" way, and point out the differences. Then let developers decide based on that on their own if Laravel is wrong or not. You saying it is wrong, doesn't make it so. "Ain't" is technically wrong, yet it has a general understanding as to what it means. So should we smack everyone who uses the word to get them to stop? There is a choice here. You can accept that we are imperfect beings. That means, Laravel's use of Facades is either proper now, or can one day in the future be proper. (The way I see it, the general developer audience seems to believe it is now based on discussions I have had with people in IRC.) Or, you can stand your morals absolutely. This means every Laravel developer doesn't know what they are doing, and you will never hire or recommend them. You know what? This is fine. That is a choice you can make, whether it will be good for your business or not, who knows. The way I see it, Laravel is where it is because it is easy to understand. The API's are simple to understand and above all the terminology makes sense to the majority of people. There is no reason for a change like this now. Either Laravel will prosper even more and the definition can be improved or the general dev vocabulary will change, screw the definition. |
Incorrect. I am saying that the behavior it implements, a proxy-like behavior, is named the wrong thing for how it actually behaves. A better name exists, one that implies the pattern actually being followed by the underlying code. |
|
@Garbee 👍 |
|
@pmjones, If I wrote that much and all you can pull out is that to argue with, then I do believe we can all see how pointless this is now. |
|
It shows me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The rest of it is fluff. |
|
Interesting. Anyone who disagrees with @pmjones has a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone who agrees is correct. |
|
|
That's quite a complement, @Garbee |
|
How is this still going on? Leave it already! |
|
Feel free to leave it, as you wish. |
|
No more comments after this one. @pmjones just wants attention. I think we have given him enough for at least a week of peace from him. Until the next semantic. |
|
@robclancy +1 In fact, no comments from anyone except @taylorotwell who is the actual decision maker. |
|
@pmjones You just made a comment... |
|
Even when I agree, you're unhappy. |
This backwards-compatible change removes the word "Facade" in class names and comments in favor of the word "Surrogate." All current tests pass.
The word "Facade" implies the facade pattern, but the implementation is closer to a proxy pattern. The word "Surrogate", on the other hand, implies something closer to the existing behavior (i.e., a static proxy call to a container instance).
The method names (get|set)Facade(Accessor|Application) remain in place. Changing them requires changing the related abstract class (Surrogate, née Facade). Because userland code may be extending the abstract class, that would require the userland code to be changed as well. That is not a backwards-compatible approach. Thus, the method names remain as a historical artifact. Future versions should deprecate and/or rename these methods to remove the word Facade.
Per https://github.com/laravel/framework#contributing: Since this is a rename/replace of an existing behavior, and not a new component, this pull request is against the latest stable release. Please provide specific instructions if another approach is preferable.