RFC: Future of Routing & MVC in Flow

[Marc (Marc Henry Schultz)]

Thanks for your answers!

@bwaidelich

You mean “someAction” rather than “some”?

yes in some kind of backwards compatible fashion.
Or like: If the @controller is a FQN the @action must also be someAction.
But i only started the discussion because of my points below (and i like less magic)

@bwaidelich

That’s still possible. An annotated method should not specify the @action default anyways (and IMO the corresponding implementation should throw if it is)

Okay interesting, if we were to introduce another routing way instead of generating the @action from the annotation this would solve the dilemma.

Currently martins pr would generate for

namespace My\Package\Controller;

class ExampleController extends ActionController
{
    #[Flow\Route(uriPattern:'my/path', httpMethods: ['get'])]
    public function someAction(): void
    {
    }
}

the following routing values (which i originally disliked as it leads to coupling of things that are currently not coupled)

@package: 'My.Package'
@controller: 'Example'
@action: 'some'

but if we would just generate the following value

@package: 'My.Package'
@controller: 'Example'

or later

@controller: 'My\Package\Controller\ExampleController'

and check inside the controller which annotated methods exist and based on that and their uriPattern and the uriPattern of the current request we could resolve the correct method.
Is that what you meant?

Or should we introduce with martins pr a separate @annotatedActionName value?