Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100131
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.169 as permitted sender)
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 23:54:39 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <6c5dd09b-904b-b518-bd89-50cd28cbeaae@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVpF53Nn=K-CbVh8NSEqzebpdzZ7WgGsq91TWfo47GbEJw@mail.gmail.com> <72B777E0-9E71-4D63-A9D0-20FD62F1A187@gmail.com> <d5b836f9-3e2e-a568-0dec-1e8cb1ac290b@gmail.com> <231D3A47-F8BE-47C8-B1BB-B6F320BED367@gmail.com> <6c5dd09b-904b-b518-bd89-50cd28cbeaae@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <6F7528B9-5F52-4E74-A04E-C59554E80570@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changes to SuperGlobals for PHP 8
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

On 30 July 2017 20:21:01 BST, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail=2Ecom> wr=
ote:
>Hi!
>
>> My point was that if we were considering a compatibility break
>> anyway, we should look at separating out those common use cases into
>> something higher level=2E
>
>I'm completely in agreement with you here, except for "compatibility
>break" part=2E The good news is that you do not need any compatibility
>breaks! If you want to create API that allows easy standardized access
>to the common denominator of web requests - and I do not disagree it
>would be a good thing! - you do not need to change _SERVER=2E

A good point=2E Of course, "if" doesn't have to be symmetrical, so perhaps=
 I should say that if we plan to break compatibility, we should definitely =
do this; if we don't plan to, we should maybe do it anyway=2E


>> Having done that, we could even allow the low-level "raw server vars"
>> (not under the name $_SERVER) to drift even further
>
>Why not under the name _SERVER?

In general, I always think that when splitting something, you should renam=
e both parts, not keep one=2E Code using the retained name will continue to=
 partly work but have odd bugs, rather than completely failing until someon=
e reviews which replacement is appropriate=2E =20

But in reality, you might want to keep $_SERVER around for compatibility a=
nyway, so there'd be no point having 3 different versions of the same thing=
=2E The only advantage of a new name at that point would be if we decided t=
o get rid of the shared nothing, global request state model=2E

Regards,

--=20
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]