Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider symfony/routing 4.1? #5

Closed
nicolas-grekas opened this issue Mar 26, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Consider symfony/routing 4.1? #5

nicolas-grekas opened this issue Mar 26, 2018 · 6 comments
Labels
feature request New feature or request

Comments

@nicolas-grekas
Copy link

It inherits from FastRoute, now faster and with more features.
See https://medium.com/@nicolas.grekas/making-symfonys-router-77-7x-faster-1-2-958e3754f0e1

@bwoebi
Copy link
Member

bwoebi commented Mar 26, 2018

I'm a little confused about "faster". As far as I read, there are vast differences between first route, last route, failed match, dynamic case, static case, mixing dynamic&static etc.

Perhaps the chunking sizes got outdated with performance improvements related to PCRE 2, PCRE JIT or such. I think if that's the case, it should be trivial to change that upstream instead.

Regarding the features - not sure whether we really need that here - you can trivially clone the router and attach two different routes to either of them and attach it to your vhost dispatcher.
The router is currently about the initial line of the HTTP Request: method and path. Everything else is already covered by other mechanisms (vhost dispatcher). So not sure whether this would just be out of scope here.

@nicolas-grekas
Copy link
Author

About faster, the second part explains why we now achieve better performance: https://medium.com/@nicolas.grekas/making-symfony-router-lightning-fast-2-2-19281dcd245b
About the feature set, the one gathered by the Symfony router has been accumulated over time by requests from the community, so I make the assumption it covers some real use cases.
Of course that's just a suggestion, I may miss some policies/principles of the project here.
That's just a proposal.

@kelunik
Copy link
Member

kelunik commented Mar 27, 2018

@bwoebi We no longer have vhosts. ;-P

@nicolas-grekas I've considered that, but went with what we already had in the few years of Aerys lifetime. Seems like it requires 7.1, while currently all our projects require 7.0.

@kelunik kelunik added the feature request New feature or request label Mar 27, 2018
@bwoebi
Copy link
Member

bwoebi commented Mar 27, 2018

@kelunik I have lost a bit the orientation with all the packages - before it was rather nicely in one place. To my knowledge consensus was to split vhosts as a middleware into a separate package?

@kelunik
Copy link
Member

kelunik commented Mar 27, 2018

@bwoebi They can be reimplemented, yes, but there are currently no plans for that from my or @trowski's side I think.

@kelunik
Copy link
Member

kelunik commented Apr 10, 2022

It should be very simple to build another package like this based on symfony/routing. I'm glad we don't have a coupled design like in the past anymore.

@kelunik kelunik closed this as completed Apr 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New feature or request
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants