Add the webapp pack

[fabpot]

Q	A
License	MIT

I'd like to deprecate the website-skeleton in favor of a new webapp pack.

The recommended pack is opinionated as it promotes the following:

• Doctrine ORM
• PostgreSQL as a default transport for Messenger (default recipes already makes PostgreSQL the default database choice)
• Symfony Webpack Encore / Symfony UX

We might add additional opinionated choices over time.

The idea is to get something that works out of the box for most applications.

[github-actions]

Thanks for the PR 😍

How to test these changes in your application

1. Define the SYMFONY_ENDPOINT environment variable:

   # On *nix and Mac
   export SYMFONY_ENDPOINT=https://api.github.com/repos/symfony/recipes/contents/index.json?ref=flex/pull-1010
   # On Windows
   SET SYMFONY_ENDPOINT=https://api.github.com/repos/symfony/recipes/contents/index.json?ref=flex/pull-1010

2. Install the package(s) related to this recipe:

   composer req 'symfony/flex:^1.16'
   composer req 'symfony/webapp-pack:^1.0'

3. Don't forget to unset the SYMFONY_ENDPOINT environment variable when done:

   # On *nix and Mac
   unset SYMFONY_ENDPOINT
   # On Windows
   SET SYMFONY_ENDPOINT=

Diff between recipe versions

In order to help with the review stage, I'm in charge of computing the diff between the various versions of patched recipes.
I'm going keep this comment up to date with any updates of the attached patch.

[javiereguiluz]

I agree on this idea ... but the recommended name concerns me. This comment:

The idea is to get something that works out of the box for most applications

I guess it refers to "web apps", not "apps in general" or specific apps such as "CLI apps", "microservices apps", etc.

That's why I think we should make it more clear that this is recommended for "web apps". Maybe we could think of other name? Random idea: web-starter

[fabpot]

I would not use starter, but I do understand where you're coming from. We could also have another pack for CLI command projects for instance, but that would only be about 0 more dep (console is already installed by default), so not really needed (the same goes for API).
So, it looks like this is the "only" case where we would need more is web applications, which is the core of what people build with the full-stack framework, hence "recommended".

[fabpot]

Would webapp-pack be better? People would use it as composer req webapp.

[fabpot]

The only downside is that webapp does not convey the opinionated part of this pack.

[javiereguiluz]

For reference purposes, Spring Framework has many kinds of starter project templates and they have one called "Spring Boot" which:

Takes an opinionated view of building Spring applications and gets you up and running as quickly as possible.

Also, we'd need to know if this concept of "project templates" is going to expand. "CLI apps" probably not needed because of what Fabien said above, but similar to what Apple's Xcode shows in "Create New Project" window:

We may want (in the future) to create a "cloud-first app", a "SPA app", etc.

[fabpot]

We don't have a concept of project templates as we promote composition instead. So, a project is a blend of packages and packs that you can mix the way you want.
Again, I don't envision more than this webapp-pack in the future.

[fabpot]

PR updated accordingly.