On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 6:21 PM Andreas Leathley <a.leath...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 06.10.20 17:15, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > My opinion on constructor property promotion (CPP) is that it's something
> > for small value object classes and should probably be regarded as
> > code-smell on larger classes. At the same time, annotations belong with
> > more complex objects and not so much with small "struct-like" classes.
> >
> > Given that position, I think we should err towards strictness in how
> > attributes are applied to CPP declarations. That is, we should require
> > them to be meaningfully applicable to both arguments and properties in
> > order to be used in a CPP context. If that's a problem for the consumer,
> > then they should avoid use of CPP.
> >
> > -Sara
>
> The current usage of annotations is quite often with small struct-like
> classes though - I mainly use annotations (and will use attributes) for
> data that needs to be validated, or entity-like classes that contain
> data. Those classes are small and simple and would benefit greatly from
> CPP and attributes used in combination, so it would be a pity to make
> that impossible.
>
> From my understanding suppressing the validation errors in this
> particular case would be a good solution, or are there any serious
> downsides to that?
>
This is my argument as well. Attributes + CPP are a powerful combination.
Attributes are an important use-csae for data transfer objects, to
configure validation or serialization for example:
class ChangeFirstNameRequest
{
public function __construct(
#[Validate\IsPositive]
public int $id;
#[Validate\NotBlank]
#[Json("first_name")]
public string $firstName;
) {}
}
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
