Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108708
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
In-Reply-To: <EDE88396-4FEE-4A2F-BB09-082EAC12D916@pmjones.io>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:42:26 -0500
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BC70DBB6-CD22-4D88-8A0F-FF6315B91942@newclarity.net>
References: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io>
 <EDE88396-4FEE-4A2F-BB09-082EAC12D916@pmjones.io>
To: "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones@pmjones.io>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2)
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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?


I would pick the latter.  They are =E2=80=94 to me =E2=80=94 more =
descriptive of actually what they are accomplishing than the former.

-Mike=