> On Mar 13, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjo...@pmjones.io> wrote:
>
> One other alternative John & I contemplated was
> `Web{Request,Response,ResponseSender}` -- do you think that might be a
> reasonable alternative to HTTP, one that is "adjacent" but not
> overly-specific? That would net us:
>
> - WebRequest
> - WebResponse
> - WebResponseSender
>
> I didn't like the look of it previously, and I don't think I like the look of
> it now, but ... (/me shrugs).
>
>
>> However, that also may be confusing if people expect it to be a construct
>> for making outgoing requests.
>
> Yes, that's another tricky bit in the naming -- making a distinction between
> the objects as representative of client operations (send request, receive
> response) and server operations (receive request, send response). Thus the
> current `Server` prefix (however unsatisfactory it may be) to indicate their
> operational context.
>
> Your `Incoming` and `Outgoing` prefixes, minus the HTTP, would net us:
>
> - IncomingRequest
> - OutgoingResponse
> - OutgoingResponseSender
>
> I will need to ponder on those.
>
>> 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).
>
> Yes, userland does operate that way. However, I think adding an HTTP
> namespace to PHP itself is something to be avoided, so emulating userland
> here is not an option.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> `Current{...}` is not something we had previously considered; that would net
> us, in the global namespace:
>
> - CurrentRequest
> - CurrentResponse
> - CurrentResponseSender
>
> I will need to ponder on those as well.
>
> Any further thoughts or opinions on this, Stephen? Or from anyone else?
One issue that I have is, if we are going to fine-tune the naming to make sure
it matches *exactly* then I think that CurrentRequest->server does not make
sense.
Maybe if you choose one of these names you should break out the server-specific
items into their own class/object?
-Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
