Coverage increased (+0.002%) to 96.605% when pulling f57f27a on vicolachips44:dev-3x into 30cfe3c on slimphp:3.x.

@vicolachips44 , I also was looking for a way to set my own implementation of \Slim\Route . Good one, I'll try it later.

But, @codeguy , @silentworks is this ok for merge? It would be much better to use this approach as a Slim official release, so we would not break compatibility in near future official releases, please!

Why not just override map?

@akrabat , thanks for your question! See the piece of code below. IMHO, it push us to change to much core code just to insert a new function to the inherited class.

I am concerned about overriding map:

• what if changes occour to Router::map in near future? It would break the approach
• we have to create two new classes, an inheritance of Router and Route, because we do not have direct access to change the way Router instantiate a type of Route (see below)
• and all this work just to instantiate another Route (like the example, RouteB) ?

That is why I agree with this merge request. Seems reasonable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

class RouteB extends \Slim\Route{

    public function allow($roles){
        //my new function
    }
}

class RouterB extends \Slim\Router {
    /**
     *
     * {@inheritDoc}
     * @see \Slim\Router::map()
     */
    public function map($methods, $pattern, $handler)
    {
        if (!is_string($pattern)) {
            throw new InvalidArgumentException('Route pattern must be a string');
        }

        // Prepend parent group pattern(s)
        if ($this->routeGroups) {
            $pattern = $this->processGroups() . $pattern;
        }

        // According to RFC methods are defined in uppercase (See RFC 7231)
        $methods = array_map("strtoupper", $methods);

        /* ******************************************************
                 * Is this approach ok just to instantiate RouteB instead of Slim\Route ????? 
                 *******************************************************
                */
        $route = new RouteB ($methods, $pattern, $handler, $this->routeGroups, $this->routeCounter); 
        $this->routes[$route->getIdentifier()] = $route;
        $this->routeCounter++;
        return $route;
    }
}

$container['router'] = new RouterB();

we have to create two new classes, an inheritance of Router and Route, because we do not have direct access to change the way Router instantiate a type of Route (see below)

You'll still have to do this.

You'll still have to do this.

but the point is: All we need is just to tell Router what kind of custom Route implementation we want. We don't want to change other parts of Router::map.

If Router::map make a call to a new function Router::createRoute($methods, $pattern, $callable) , it is done, no more map code replication :)