[Best Pracitices] restore example in the "Service: No Class Parameter" section

[uvoelkel]

Q	A
Doc fix?	yes
New docs?	no
Applies to	all
Fixed tickets

In 1fb20e5 the 'how to NOT do it' config example in the "Best Practices -> Organizing Your Business Logic -> Service: No Class Parameter" section was changed to actually follow the recommendation.
It is especially confusing as the example in the section "Services: Naming and Format" is exactly the same (besides the comment)

[xabbuh]

missing indentation here

[stof]

The best practive says Don't define parameters for the classes of your services., so it seems weird to show an example doing the opposite

[uvoelkel]

Right, but the "Service: No Class Parameter" section shows an example of how it should NOT be done. At least that is what i get from the context.
The comment in the example says: # service definition with class namespace as parameter
Also the note: "This practice is cumbersome and completely unnecessary for your own services" suggests that the example shows how NOT to do it.

The right way to do it is described in the previous section as the note: "You may have noticed that the previous service definition doesn't configure the class namespace as a parameter" indicates.

[xabbuh]

@u-voelkel I agree with you. I actually blindly removed this parameter in #4519 without looking at the context here.

[stof]

the whole paragraph should be reworded actually, because this practice is not only discouraged for your own services but also for shared bundles (Symfony 2.6+ does not expose class parameters anymore for its new services, and they will all be removed in 3.0)

[uvoelkel]

maybe it should. to me it actually was clear. the only thing that got me tripping was the example. I understood it as a how not to do it example but could not find a difference to the correct one.

[weaverryan]

Wow, great catch! For me, the wording seems good enough -- we're just highlighting (briefly) about the history of why people started doing this in their projects. But if someone did re-word it to be more clear, I would certainly accept it. Thanks!