Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:103835
To: nikita.ppv@gmail.com
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:06:12 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20190124150612.F28C6100432@smtp02.mail.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New custom object serialization mechanism
From: naitsirch@e.mail.de

Sorry, forgot to CC the following mail to internals:=0A=0AAm 24-Jan-2019=
 14:28:43 +0100 schrieb nikita.ppv@gmail.com:=0A> =0A> On Thu, Jan 24, 2=
019 at 2:15 PM <naitsirch@e.mail.de> wrote:=0A> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 a=
t 13:27 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>=0A> > wrote:=0A> > =0A> > >=
 Hi internals,=0A> > > =0A> > > I'd like to propose a new custom object=
 serialization mechanism intended to=0A> > > replace the broken Serializ=
able interface:=0A> > > =0A> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/custom_object_=
serialization=0A> > > =0A> > > This was already previously discussed in=
 https://externals.io/message/98834,=0A> > > this just brings it into RF=
C form. The latest motivation for this is=0A> > > https://bugs.php.net/b=
ug.php?id=3D77302, a compatibility issue in 7.3=0A> > > affecting Symfon=
y, caused by Serializable. We can't fix Serializable, but=0A> > > we can=
 at least make sure that a working alternative exists.=0A> > > =0A> > >=
 Regards,=0A> > > Nikita=0A> > =0A> > Hi.=0A> > =0A> > What happens if b=
oth `__serialize()` and `__wakeup()` are implemented?=0A> =0A> You mean=
 if there are just those two methods, but not __unserialize() for exampl=
e?=0A> In that case the array returned by __serialize() will be unserial=
ized as object=0A> properties and __wakeup() will be called for finaliza=
tion. In principle it's okay to=0A> use this combination, though it woul=
d be somewhat unusual.=0A=0A=0ASorry, what I wanted to ask was, what hap=
pens if `__serialize()` and `__SLEEP()` are implemented? xD=0A=0AHere's=
 an example:=0A=0Aclass A {=0A    private $foo =3D 'foo';=0A    private=
 $bar =3D 'bar';=0A=0A    function __serialize() {=0A        return ['fo=
o' =3D> $this->foo];=0A    }=0A=0A    function __sleep() {=0A        ret=
urn ['bar'];=0A    }=0A}=0A=0Aecho serialize(new A());=0A=0AWhat will be=
 the output of the above snippet?=0A=0A> =0A> > And another idea for the=
 naming: Maybe one could use `__normalize()` and `__denormalize()`. Beca=
use the methods do not serialize themself, like the normalizer in the Sy=
mfony serializer component. =0A> =0A> I'd like that "serialization" appe=
ars in some form in the name, to make clear in what context this is used=
. Normalization is a fairly general term and could refer to any number o=
f things.=0A> =0A> Nikita=0A=0AYes, you are right. It is just, that my p=
ersonal taste for function names is that they should describe what they=
 do. New users may be irritated about the function name.=0AMaybe a more=
 explicit name would be `__toSerializable`.=0A=0ABut I have no idea for=
 the counterpart ^^=0A=0ABest regards,=0A=0AChristian=0A----------------=
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------=0AFreeMail powered by mail.de - MEHR SICHERHEIT, SERIOSIT=C3=
=84T UND KOMFORT