Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108702
Return-Path: <pmjones@pmjones.io>
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 26001 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2020 17:10:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5)
by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2020 17:10:07 -0000
Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE33180532
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:26:19 -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_H2,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: <pmjones@pmjones.io>
Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net (relay11.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.231])
(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 <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from samurai.attlocal.net (107-223-28-39.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net [107.223.28.39])
(Authenticated sender: pmjones@pmjones.io)
by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2D5710001A
for <internals@lists.php.net>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:26:16 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:26:14 -0600
References: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io>
To: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io>
Message-ID: <EDE88396-4FEE-4A2F-BB09-082EAC12D916@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,
One of the "open questions" on this RFC is: are the class names =
ServerRequest, ServerResponse, and ServerResponseSender "good enough" =
for our purposes, or are there names that are "better" in some =
qualitative way?
The original thought was Request and Response, but I thought it might be =
too easy to think of them as client-related, rather than server-related. =
Then I tried PhpRequest and PhpResponse, but having "PHP" in the name =
seemed unnecessary, as this is PHP after all. I settled on ServerRequest =
and ServerResponse to point out that they are server-related.
Having said that, would something like, say, RequestContext and =
ResponseBuffer (with ResponseSender) be "better" somehow? Or perhaps =
some other names? Or are readers here satisfied that the existing names =
are sufficient?
And thanks to the many folks here who have already provided such =
valuable feedback!
--=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