Hi All,
Johannes Schlüter wrote (on 07/10/2013):
Why replace something? Are there flaws which can't be fixed? Adding too
many ways to do the same thing is confusing for everybody. If you want
it "object oriented" or such frameworks do great things. The language
should offer a good foundation. (I
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 20:38 +0200, Christian Stadler wrote:
> Actually I like the idea of having an API to handle everything important
> for the HTTP-request and respectively for the response.
>
> e. g.:
> HTTPRequest::getFormData(...), which could possibly be aliased by
> HTTPRequest::getPOSTData
Am 02.10.2013 23:40, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> On 2 October 2013 16:10, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 08:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> >> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
>> >>
hi!
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
>> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
>> request method. Therefor I propose to phase
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 19:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 16:10, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 08:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
> >> because, despite their name, they do not (really) dep
> On 02.10.2013, at 10:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
>> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
>> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET and name it
>> $_QUERY and I propose to phase out $_POS
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >> There are already parsers for application/x-www-form-urlencoded and
> >> multipart/form-data in the core. One could think of providing an API
> >> to add content type handlers from extensions, ext/json may be an
> >> example, like it is
On 2 October 2013 17:15, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>>
>> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
>> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
>> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET a
On 2 October 2013 16:10, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 08:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
>> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
>> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
>> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_G
> Further, I propose to remove the POST method restriction for handling
request bodies and solely rely on the content type to trigger the
parser(s). (*)
+1
This would solve the with parsing multi-form data with PUT requests (and
possibly any future method types), thus enabling full REST support :)
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET and name it
> $_QUERY and I propose to phase out $_POS
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 08:59 +0200, Michael Wallner wrote:
> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET and name it
> $_QUERY and I propose to phase out $_PO
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:50 +0100, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > Le 2 octobre 2013 à 13:27, Michael Wallner a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On 2 October 2013 13:12, Leigh wrote:
> > > On 2 October 2013 07:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
> > >
> > > You certainly won't be able to remove $_GET / $_POST (implied by
>
> Le 2 octobre 2013 à 13:27, Michael Wallner a écrit :
>
>
> On 2 October 2013 13:12, Leigh wrote:
> > On 2 October 2013 07:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> > You certainly won't be able to remove $_GET / $_POST (implied by
> > "phase out") in any 5.x release, it's just too big of a BC break.
>
On 2 October 2013 13:12, Leigh wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 07:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> I propose to phase out $_GET and name it $_QUERY and
>> I propose to phase out $_POST and name it $_FORM
>
> I have to say I'm against this aspect of the proposal. While the names
> may not be 100% accura
On 2 October 2013 12:00, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> Le 2 octobre 2013 à 10:58, Michael Wallner a écrit :
>> On 2 October 2013 11:56, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>> > Backwards compatibility matters, so we should keep $_GET and $_POST but add
>> > these as better aliases for them.
>>
>> That's why I said "
On 02.10.2013, at 15:12, Leigh wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 08:31, Michael Wallner wrote:
>>
>> I had it, but I'm not sure $_BODY fits either, because it should be an
>> array. Currently only form data fits the purpose of de-serialisation
>> of a request body.
>>
>
> Not so sure about that. I
On 2 October 2013 07:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
> I propose to phase out $_GET and name it $_QUERY and
> I propose to phase out $_POST and name it $_FORM
I have to say I'm against this aspect of the proposal. While the names
may not be 100% accurate, _most_ people are used to their behaviour.
Yo
> Le 2 octobre 2013 à 10:58, Michael Wallner a écrit :
> On 2 October 2013 11:56, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > Backwards compatibility matters, so we should keep $_GET and $_POST but add
> > these as better aliases for them.
>
> That's why I said "phase out"... or is it a german anglicism?
It's not.
> Le 2 octobre 2013 à 07:59, Michael Wallner a écrit :
>
> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET and name it
> $_QUERY and I propose to phase out $_PO
On 02.10.2013, at 11:24, Michael Wallner wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 09:17, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>
>> 3. expose body-parsers via php-level API
>>
>> +1. Hell, yes! Something like +1000, actually ;)
>
> Uhmmm... I actually meant an interal API not userland :)
well, why not both? :)
stri
On 2 October 2013 09:25, Jannik Zschiesche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> wouldn’t $_BODY be better - since it is the request body?
> $_FORM is imho not very clear, since you can send data to $_POST without
> using a form.
I had it, but I'm not sure $_BODY fits either, because it should be an
array. Currently
Hi,
wouldn’t $_BODY be better - since it is the request body?
$_FORM is imho not very clear, since you can send data to $_POST without using
a form.
--
Cheers
Jannik
Am Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2013 um 09:17 schrieb Alexey Zakhlestin:
>
> On 02.10.2013, at 10:59, Michael Wallner mailto:m...@
On 2 October 2013 09:17, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
> 3. expose body-parsers via php-level API
>
> +1. Hell, yes! Something like +1000, actually ;)
Uhmmm... I actually meant an interal API not userland :)
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscrib
On 02.10.2013, at 10:59, Michael Wallner wrote:
> Since ever people are confused by _GET and _POST superglobals,
> because, despite their name, they do not (really) depend on the
> request method. Therefor I propose to phase out $_GET and name it
> $_QUERY and I propose to phase out $_POST and
25 matches
Mail list logo
