Removing implicitly suggested development cycle #1020

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
Contributor

Ocramius commented Jan 22, 2012

Hereby I'm just suggesting to remove the invitation to use repeatedly doctrine:generate:entities. The user should be aware that this command is a kick-starter and that it shouldn't be used repeatedly.

Member

weaverryan commented Jan 24, 2012

Hi Marco!

Hmm, I actually disagree here. The doctrine:generate:entities can be run over and over again, and is useful to generate the getters and setters after you add a new mapped property. I think is a valid use-case. What do you think?

Thanks!

Member

stof commented Jan 24, 2012

@weaverryan there is one warning though: this command will never alter existing code. So you can use it again when adding new fields, but it is totally useful when modifying existing ones

Contributor

Ocramius commented Jan 24, 2012

@weaverryan this may well be, but CTI/STI won't really work first, plus the complete idea is seen as "code smell" by many users I have talked with.
I am often acting as a doctrine-evangelist (said like that sounds weird!), and the fact there's code generation ofter induces new users to think that entities are database-driven and not the opposite.
Also, this is not seen well by many developers who would have been a valid addition to the community and who got the entire concept of doctrine wrong (some also told me the code-generation approach is also in some webinars).
This command has it's purpose and makes sense, but for newcomer it is highly inappropriate to expose it as best practice or as suggested development cycle, as it really is confusing.
It's not really about bugs and problems with it, it is more about how people understand how to work with Doctrine entities and how instead they do.

The main point around here is "confusion", not the usefulness of the command itself, which is not being discussed.

Member

weaverryan commented Feb 1, 2012

Hey Marco!

Yes, I hear your point - I think it's very valid, I've just re-worded this section to hopefully help with this (there was another PR near this section, so it needed to be reconstructed to accept both ideas).

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks!

weaverryan closed this Feb 1, 2012

Contributor

Ocramius commented Feb 1, 2012

Nice, thank you :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment