Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:100925
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain kelunik.com from 81.169.146.163 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b0942929-b7a4-7be8-674f-982fdf40a6b7@gmail.com>
References: <CAESVnVpUqpLpKW5X2k7v-nMUxCUhBPQ6P0tEBP9_zNdo63309w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b0942929-b7a4-7be8-674f-982fdf40a6b7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:43:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CANUQDCjAHjaT4URjutwhBSiHWjmtzuu33K_KLUb-9HGqNS7+Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1295bea46577055c46ee70"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] json(Raw)Serializable?
From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller)

--94eb2c1295bea46577055c46ee70
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> Hi!
>
> > It's not terribly unreasonable IMO, but before I just writeup the RFC
> > as described (jsonRawSerialize taking preceedence over jsonSerialize),
> > I thought I'd ask for opinions on the specifics.
> >
> > In psuedo-code:
> >
> > if (is_object($obj)) {
> >   if ($obj implements JsonRawSerializable) {
> >     // use $obj->jsonRawSerialize() as is.
> >   } elseif ($obj implements JsonSerializble) {
> >     // use json_encode($obj->jsonSerialize())
> >   } else {
> >     // Serialize the object's public properties as a key/value map
> >   }
> > }
>
> I'm not sure I feel very comfortable with having specialized serialize
> interfaces for every format, yet more with having more than one of them.
>
> There's also validation problem - if we don't ensure this is valid JSON,
> then whole serialization setup is broken, and who knows which
> consequences this will bring.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what is the case for fixed JSON serialization - cases
> where the data is completely static and yet you still need to serialize
> it is pretty rare IMHO. Yes, we save some cycles on serializing such
> things, but how often that happens, really? If it's static, why not just
> set it on loading? Maybe I miss some reasonable use case, but so far
> sounds pretty exotic to me.


Same thoughts here. Without further arguments I'd definitely vote against
an RFC suggesting such a change.

Regards, Niklas

--94eb2c1295bea46577055c46ee70--