moved nav view helpers into \Zend\Navigation namespace

[zucchi]

I have now moved the Navigation view helpers into the \Zend\Navigation namespaces and folders.

This now logically groups the helpers in the same way that we have done with the form view helpers.

I have also modified the helpers so that it is no longer necessary to proxy through the navigation helper and you may directly call

$this->menu($container);
$this->breadcrumbs($container);
$this->links($container);
$this->sitemap($container);

[weierophinney]

I think it's a bad idea to be changing namespaces this late in the rc
process, regardless of how correct it might be. We've had enough breakages
already.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Matt Cockayne wrote:

I have now moved the Navigation view helpers into the \Zend\Navigation
namespaces and folders.

This now logically groups the helpers in the same way that we have done
with the form view helpers.

I have also modified the helpers so that it is no longer necessary to
proxy through the navigation helper and you may directly call

$this->menu($container);
$this->breadcrumbs($container);
$this->links($container);

$this->sitemap($container);

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

git pull https://github.com/zucchi/zf2 zucchi/nav-tweaks

Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

#2199
Commit Summary

• moved nav view helpers into \Zend\Navigation namespace

File Changes

• M library/Zend/Navigation/View/HelperConfig.php (26)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation.php (348)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/AbstractHelper.php (869)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/Breadcrumbs.php (301)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/HelperInterface.php (150)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/Links.php (772)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/Menu.php (624)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/PluginManager.php (63)
• D library/Zend/View/Helper/Navigation/Sitemap.php (457)

Patch Links

• https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/pull/2199.patch

• https://github.com/zendframework/zf2/pull/2199.diff

  —
  Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/moved nav view helpers into \Zend\Navigation namespace #2199.

Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
http://mwop.net/

[zucchi]

I appreciate that it is rather late in the process... but when would be a good time is the question I will ask??? Once it hits stable then the ability to make a change like this becomes that much harder.

[weierophinney]

3.0. Which will be in 18-24 months.

Yes, this is a good change. However, the time to have made it is past when
it comes to 2.0. We have to draw the line somewhere, or we'll never have a
stable 2.0 release.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Matt Cockayne wrote:

I appreciate that it is rather late in the process... but when would be a
good time is the question I will ask??? Once it hits stable then the
ability to make a change like this becomes that much harder.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/2199#issuecomment-7854355.

Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
http://mwop.net/

[weierophinney]

Alternately, retain the original classes in the view component, and have
them proxy to those in the nav component. Tge point is that we need to
maintain the helpers in the view component going forward for 2.x for BC
purposes. Proxying is one way to do that.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:

3.0. Which will be in 18-24 months.

Yes, this is a good change. However, the time to have made it is past when
it comes to 2.0. We have to draw the line somewhere, or we'll never have a
stable 2.0 release.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Matt Cockayne wrote:

I appreciate that it is rather late in the process... but when would be a
good time is the question I will ask??? Once it hits stable then the
ability to make a change like this becomes that much harder.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/2199#issuecomment-7854355.

Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'matthew@weierophinney.net');>
http://mwop.net/

Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
http://mwop.net/

[zucchi]

Ok... so if I refactor to ensure no BC breaks, am I in with a chance of getting this accepted

[weierophinney]

Yes.

On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Matt Cockayne wrote:

Ok... so if I refactor to ensure no BC breaks, am I in with a chance of
getting this accepted

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/2199#issuecomment-7854405.

Matthew Weier O'Phinney
matthew@weierophinney.net
http://mwop.net/

[zucchi]

have re-factored and submitted new pull request (#2201) which should offer the best of both worlds by offering the updates I've made and the keeping the proxy to maintain BC