The protected, I can understand. But why the abstract?

@iltar I agree @hhamon on this point: if all methods are now protected/private, the class shouldn't be intantiable. As an abstract class can't be instantiated, we improve the behavior of the use of this (helper/sugar) class.

Curiously, Travis now complain and want to remove symfony 3.x release ... /c @fabpot

Your requirements could not be resolved to an installable set of packages.
  Problem 1
    - Conclusion: remove symfony/symfony 3.0.x-dev

I tend to not use abstract on a class if it doesn't provide abstract methods nor missing methods from an interface, it looks weird to me. But I guess there's something to say for that as you shouldn't initiate this class yourself. If for any reason the abstract should be removed in a future patch, it will stay backwards compatible so it won't be a problem either way. 👍

@iltar the abstract keyword embrace 2 differents concepts:

• an abstract class means you can't instanciate it, but only classes that extends it.
• abstract method is more than a contract - like interface - enforce you to make your own implementation of this methods in children classes

The point is you don't need to have abstract methods to be allowed to use abstract keyword on a class as the abstract keyword has not the same sense.

👍

wow, I wasn't stofized o_O such happy day ^^

👍

Can someone relaunch travis build?
I confirm tests pass.

ping @fabpot

Thank you @mickaelandrieu.