> On 13 Mar 2020, at 20:39, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@pmjones.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 02:41, Stephen Reay <php-li...@koalephant.com> wrote:
>>
>> I realise this is just bike shedding - the naming seems quite odd to me.
>>
>> This extension and the classes it provides are inherently about HTTP
>> requests made to a php ‘server’, and the response it sends back - and yet
>> it’s called Server{Request,Response,Buffer} etc…. The “server” part is
>> superfluous in the context of a php web application, because it’s all
>> “server” side, and while uncommon it’s not impossible to write *other* types
>> of network server using PHP.
>
> I share your feeling here, and I don't think it's bike shedding. The naming
> is still an open question on the RFC.
>
> I mentioned some other candidate names here ...
>
> https://externals.io/message/108436#108702
>
> ... and re-reading your comment above, it looks like you saw that one.
>
> Do you have alternative suggestions or preferences on the names? Or, do you
> feel that "Request" and "Response" and "ResponseSender" (without any prefixes
> at all) would be sufficiently obvious?
>
> Let me know, and thanks for bringing it up!
>
>
> --
> Paul M. Jones
> pmjo...@pmjones.io
> http://paul-m-jones.com
>
> Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/mlaphp
>
> Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
> https://leanpub.com/sn1php
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
Hi Paul,
TLDR: if you aren’t concerned about the concept of php-initiated outgoing HTTP
requests, I think `HTTP{Request,Response,Buffer}` is quite clear in terms of
naming. If you wanted to be more explicit about their purpose (and/or prevent
possible confusion with either user land or potential future extensions
handling outgoing requests), `IncomingHTTPRequest` and `OutgoingHTTPResponse`
are very explicit, if a bit verbose.
I think I did see that message, but I must admit I haven’t followed all the
responses in the discussion.
Personally I think `HTTP` makes a pretty obvious prefix (I’m not gonna get into
a capitalisation debate), because these things are explicitly related to HTTP
request and response messages.
However, that also may be confusing if people expect it to be a construct for
making outgoing requests.
The user land implementation I’ve been using ’solves’ this by using a `HTTP`
namespace, and then provides `Request` and `Response` (for an outgoing - i.e.
curl - HTTP Request, and the corresponding HTTP Response) objects and then
`CurrentRequest` and `CurrentResponse` for what your RFC proposes (i.e. the
active request made to php). As with anything any of us has written, I’m not
100% sold on ‘Current{Request,Response}` even after writing it, but I think
it’s at least a little more specific about what they do, when the namespace is
taken into account.
Cheers
Stephen
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
