Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108858 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53434 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2020 00:54:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2020 00:54:28 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D8A1804E6 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:13:57 -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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id m3so3710419wmi.0 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:13:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=85koAuTPrHsI1O7GIQlsGQ5uNXV38Z1fqLfDtl5ZfA0=; b=hIKbN5r/Hd1sQMo1Zmi1IR3BWRzt1n70lon+/iIy4V4Ms1FLegFQT5gvHVAZhQl4+j nR5lQpvPDfil9pcbmvzW2STB4p2jtLqkwVCUFma3Zn+Ypb8CKakurSrRr2wjFlsOFXsK IbT7WikuX8ksZo9q2PBRk1ez/2cRUE/eBmi4LqTYVs9rdnE3NRE80emdl2MCpNvEfcCs 4E9h4xUd/59PDzePIdB8TF6zQSHuch1/P7Ii/DLsb87ujMx8qUlPRJA9Gi5W5ihqbRTh 90iNzyxSs0p9bkffexAPd89wo4APVh+OxDULmHYLxiXEfgvduizOdWAVvKl7XZ4Doh6v XU6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=85koAuTPrHsI1O7GIQlsGQ5uNXV38Z1fqLfDtl5ZfA0=; b=mt19SRqf3t+m6+RHmRoR4styMIt6sKfueIsTuKYEmf6yuP746tpHwuQYM6wsvo5U5Z KMb6Dh4qFcyzi1x7+zljgwm8CjBRt+9/xpZl+KiQn6n0rJAS/koj7Kmqwh9+2+DqAv1q KgDZf1Pvs7rKaRV3cewAn2DX9wLzbWYNSG6u4ZvUP5A1n85fgmHDBFNPvUwnu+jggogG rNugoYbKXpiTFkJfuQj2WGo/qLfsr5FkP3NQT4yJmFsqgvWzpkiaohafzszJLw7nrEt4 zhd1SqW60f/P/mt9+TRd8tKbNB4ntqx9tZNxpZys2wLVM+UMnhpr2xSUsl/V7YoopkAw ySLA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ280vVGV7ZR6DkPYE+51NP7D/WmfACloJRgfSzfXCQSrX90gsEX H+Dhg0nHvaBJ38nQC2scGqBo4Ov0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsKMwJin+3zO3S5Kh2EIHlM/xTHtHzu30GVXQ68feh1Yg0NC23UG8wRRLVsMsU4U4oJb2/+Mg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7512:: with SMTP id o18mr5666452wmc.110.1583363633453; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:13:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpc84253-brig22-2-0-cust114.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [81.108.141.115]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm1506204wru.75.2020.03.04.15.13.52 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:13:52 -0800 (PST) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io> <1657AB79-5CAF-4BCA-96B5-1343EC703CCD@pmjones.io> <3F9CFD7B-22AB-4284-8E23-94513ABB5C3F@pmjones.io> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 23:13:44 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3F9CFD7B-22AB-4284-8E23-94513ABB5C3F@pmjones.io> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2) From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 04/03/2020 20:01, Paul M. Jones wrote: > This RFC, in contrast, does not attempt to model HTTP messages. It does not attempt to discard previous ways of working. Instead, it proposes a more object-oriented representation of functionality that already exists in PHP, honoring that previously-existing approach. There is quite a bit of real-world experience as to how well it will work, since it takes into account many commonalities between existing userland projects. Thus, what the RFC purports to get close to is that existing way-of-working, and I think it succeeds about as well as can be possible for its goals. This is something you have said a few times, and is definitely a worthy goal, but it's not something that comes across very strongly in the RFC itself. There is a comparison to Symfony HttpFoundation, but it mentions as many differences as similarities; and there is a list of 13 other implementations, but no information on how this proposal compares to them. I suspect that's just because you didn't want to burden the RFC with too many details, but if you have any notes about what functionality is common in existing libraries, perhaps that could be posted somewhere as a kind of appendix to show where the current design came from? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins (né Collins) [IMSoP]