Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102956 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74263 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2018 17:10:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2018 17:10:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=me@kelunik.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=me@kelunik.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain kelunik.com from 85.215.255.54 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: me@kelunik.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.215.255.54 mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de Received: from [85.215.255.54] ([85.215.255.54:31861] helo=mo4-p01-ob.smtp.rzone.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 6C/EE-47674-68AB45B5 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 13:10:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1532279427; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=kelunik.com; h=Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To:References: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=i73/hop/DvoDLNEV0aBHOsBV1oJtzXSntx5TyaFJugA=; b=WVGUQWp3FkBedC/1/vesBrRYKLaGrGFVfPcs2m0/Vmzh6RPho8NM78deWsFxyUv2jQ CUkgjWLPh9RVkLt58tUvg4N0PE1RSyycuqQy3N6upwLWnhdjiC/FaQIsbLS1h6tVHVBu zOKnjMF7GS/3hP2KMZiWCYYqC3OQnL1COVRDNUl0+D1TgeqOJCQJRGNw2VvGLYAcGIgJ tvIk2gMKL1ABgjotkDkZiuwig87J41vnB8LpiSRDCObHN+5K4cdAfYwRbUEC0/Hk1QAx LD15YeY2gXLJp8qtEgE0Mdkc3Eq+mdmc65bgbS1mJI/1TBtrlMEIu8ZsI95rg9VhEM2Y cjnQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":IWkkfkWkbvHsXQGmRYmUo9mlsGbEv0XHBzMIJSS+jKTzde5mDb8Db2nURiq+cA==" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q129-v6so6044597ywg.8 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHg51Na8e9wOcU2+FskoGXwFZNGI6zUNjYIRODYeF2hXPIQ0TX5 w8JPLybgQnZk+OgSa2t5jjcMI0m32rH1F9IS6Qo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcHcFCca5KhCi7Ngz8qlwyzfWeF2+YBhvCXt+SCq20M8RexlqVxtxd5PGQBBL7oOz/DBn9QLEq0izw9hfRnLjE= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ee85:: with SMTP id x127-v6mr4885794ywe.362.1532279426568; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1abd260d-ebc4-a062-3381-72485946e8bc@gmail.com> <590c1490-f6d4-d796-6139-c97da933dc05@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <590c1490-f6d4-d796-6139-c97da933dc05@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:10:15 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Christoph Becker Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_Magalh=C3=A3es?= , Andrey Andreev , Frederik Bosch , Stanislav Malyshev , PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Same Site Cookie RFC From: me@kelunik.com (Niklas Keller) Am So., 22. Juli 2018 um 18:52 Uhr schrieb Christoph M. Becker : > > On 22.07.2018 at 18:40, Niklas Keller wrote: > > > Am So., 22. Juli 2018 um 18:11 Uhr schrieb Pedro Magalh=C3=A3es : > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:47 PM Niklas Keller wrote: > >> > >>> It'd be great to use an OO approach instead of "magic" array keys, > >>> e.g. like this: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/amphp/http/blob/9c0ba2f2ebfae482b3ad7a0475eb3d1f74= d87949/src/Cookie/CookieAttributes.php > >> > >> While I do agree with the sentiment: > >> - That would have been an even greater departure from the original RFC= . > >> - This is currently a purely procedural API. If this were about an > >> hypothetical `ResponseHeaders::setCookie` it would definitely be the w= ay to > >> go. > > > > why does it have to be an all or nothing approach? It's perfectly fine > > to have a function that accepts an object. > > We have an already accepted (29:3) RFC[1], which just lacks > implementation. Departing from the solution, which we agreed upon, in > some details (such as suggested by Pedro) might be okay, but using > objects instead of arrays is certainly not. We can always have a second RFC that changes a previous RFC. It'll land in PHP 7.4 then, but that's not an issue for me. Regards, Niklas