Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108607 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88813 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2020 21:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2020 21:55:38 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A167B1804D1 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:10:35 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS29169 217.70.176.0/20 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: 107.223.28.39 Received: from [192.168.1.85] (107-223-28-39.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net [107.223.28.39]) (Authenticated sender: pmjones@pmjones.io) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5BEB60003 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\)) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:10:30 -0600 References: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io> <5904137.fSVIMsojiJ@mcmic-probook> To: php internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3DDBFBA4-8D3A-46C5-9A10-B093A5E2386B@pmjones.io> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones") Hi all, > On Feb 15, 2020, at 02:01, Larry Garfield = wrote: >=20 > ... is this proposal intended to supplant HttpFoundation and PSR-7 ... = ? This is question is answered in the RFC introduction; quoting from = there: The SQLite =E2=80=9Cabout=E2=80=9D page says, =E2=80=9CThink of = SQLite not as a replacement for Oracle but as a replacement for fopen().=E2=80=9D https://www.sqlite.org/about.html Likewise, think of this RFC not as a replacement for HttpFoundation or PSR-7, or as a model of HTTP messages, but as an object-oriented alternative to superglobals, header(), setcookie(), setrawcookie(), and so on. > PDO was mentioned previously as a model. I did not mention PDO as "a model". I mentioned PDO (along with other = extensions) to illustrate a counter-argument to objections based on the = availability and comparability of userland implementations. The = counter-argument summary was: That's not to say "because PDO was allowed into core, this RFC must therefore be allowed into core" but to say "those objections alone were not a barrier to PDO, so they alone should not be a barrier to this RFC". The argument, and my counter-argument, are here: = --=20 Paul M. Jones pmjones@pmjones.io http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php