{"issue":{"state":"closed","pull_request":{"diff_url":null,"html_url":null,"patch_url":null},"milestone":null,"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0ea4ad4f845cf4ebd28b972e6e1a6eca?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"0ea4ad4f845cf4ebd28b972e6e1a6eca","url":"https://api.github.com/users/hhamon","login":"hhamon","id":235550},"assignee":null,"updated_at":"2011-11-16T15:51:15Z","labels":[{"name":"RFC","color":"0b02e1","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/propelorm/Propel2/labels/RFC"}],"closed_at":"2011-11-16T15:51:15Z","comments":15,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/propelorm/Propel2/issues/22","body":"Hi guys,\r\n\r\nAs we are moving to version 2, I think we should remove the Propel singleton and probably rename it to PropelRegistry like for the Doctrine ORM. That's way we can use an instance of PropelRegistry (or Propel\\Registry) to store DatabaseConnection objects, configuration and so on.\r\n\r\nIf we have such a Registry class without any static methods, we will be able to inject it in any dependency injection containers (Pimple, Symfony DIC, ZF2 DIC...)\r\n\r\nAre you in favor of that?","html_url":"https://github.com/propelorm/Propel2/issues/22","title":"[RFC] Removing the Propel Singleton","number":22,"id":2022259,"created_at":"2011-10-22T11:05:12Z"},"action":"created","comment":{"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c44ab7aed2bd14539fafb9175fcf2085?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"c44ab7aed2bd14539fafb9175fcf2085","url":"https://api.github.com/users/willdurand","login":"willdurand","id":217628},"updated_at":"2011-11-16T15:51:15Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/propelorm/Propel2/issues/comments/2761348","body":"Not on the roadmap, so consider rejected. We have a lot of work on ever discussed ideas.","id":2761348,"created_at":"2011-11-16T15:51:15Z"}}