On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Personally, I'd even prefer this, but that's not what was voted upon, so > I'm not sure if it's okay. Anyhow, the implementation is available as > <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/3398>. Thanks, Pedro! > I personally believe that the intent of the vote is to have this feature and to have it included as an alternative array of parameters. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes with the proposed implementation, but given that the RFC doesn't define the array of options I think most people didn't notice this design choice and/or ultimately just wanted this feature accepted. > > About the implementation, the array of options is never really defined in > > the RFC. If we assume that it is identical to the proposed output > > of session_get_cookie_params, the name of the first key should be > lifetime. > > However, for setcookie and setrawcookie, the documented parameter name is > > expire. Would there be any issue if we would assume lifetime for the 4 > > functions? > > I'd prefer “expire_s_”, but I'm okay with “lifetime”. > Although I had suggested using the same key for all functions, when I started the implementation I realized they have different meanings. For session_get_cookie_params, lifetime is a relative amount of seconds, but for setcookie and setrawcookie expire is an absolute timestamp. So I kept that distinction. About your suggestion, I looked again, and in fact, the only place where the parameter is called expire is in the docs. Internally (ie. Reflection) it is called expires. Given this and the fact that it is what actually is used in the cookie header, I've changed the key to "expires". Regards, Pedro
