Conversation
44e3798 to
355b1f8
Compare
|
"Why" is needed |
|
@ostrolucky here's my attempt to clear up the "why":
Its usage has never been endorsed, and objects "saving themselves" are mostly an idea that is better implemented in other tools that focus just on that, while the Doctrine organisation mostly focuses on mappers. If somebody needs this, it will be trivial for them to re-implement this in their own domain, but we shouldn't push it forward from our end. |
|
Thanks, that's all everybody out of the loop needs |
ostrolucky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
UPGRADE document should be created mentioning removal of this. I agree with UPGRADE-MAJOR.md convention mentioned here #47 (comment) And deprecation for 1.2 branch should be merged first
5a9afbc to
30f68ba
Compare
30f68ba to
b36fcdc
Compare
|
@ostrolucky PR to add deprecation to 1.2 here #55 |
PersistentObject was initially introduced to show that you can do ActiveRecord with Doctrine components.
Its usage has never been endorsed, and objects "saving themselves" are mostly an idea that is better implemented in other tools that focus just on that, while the Doctrine organization mostly focuses on mappers.
If somebody needs this, it will be trivial for them to re-implement this in their own domain, but we shouldn't push it forward from our end.
PR to deprecate this functionality in 1.2 first can be found here #55