ServicesExtension: locator support Statement

[h4kuna]

• bug fix / new feature? new feature
• BC break? no
• doc PR: nette/docs#???

Example

In example I used classes from my library, if you want to try, let's use composer require h4kuna/number-format:dev-mater, but i think it is not necessary.

I want to define custom collection of formats

services:
	format.date:
		factory: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('j.n.Y')
		autowired: false
	format.time:
		factory: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('H:i:s')
		autowired: false

	date.formats: h4kuna\Format\Date\FormatsAccessor(
		date: @format.date
		time: @format.time
	)

	# set to template, but it is not need for example
	latte.latteFactory:
		setup:
			- addFilter('date', @date.formats::get('date'))
			- addFilter('time', @date.formats::get('time'))

The original way is too chatty, the patch allow

services:
	date.formats: h4kuna\Format\Date\FormatsAccessor(
		date: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('j.n.Y')
		time: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('H:i:s')
	)

I don't need class with option autowired: true explicitly to register to container. But behavior is same like above.

What do you think?

[dg]

I have for a long time in the TODO to simplify the multi-factory. To make it defined the same way as a classic generated factory. Maybe like this:

services:
	date.formats: 
		implements: h4kuna\Format\Date\FormatsAccessor
		contains:
			date: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('j.n.Y')
			time: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('H:i:s')

Compared to the syntax with parentheses, the advantage is that you can easily add, for example, setup:

		contains:
			date: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('j.n.Y')
			time: 
				factory: h4kuna\Format\Date\Formatters\DateTimeFormatter('H:i:s')
				setup:
					- foo

[h4kuna]

For my use case, the my way is sufficient. I would like this option to be possible. For me is important that the services are autowired: off.

I understand correctly that you are looking for a keyword for a key contains? Because this is an array of services which is one parameter. That is, it cannot be called arguments.

Your second example is standard what I would expect to work. But i don't need in this moment.