Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:109065
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
In-Reply-To: <9c8064d1-52cf-c31d-f023-e323b5c2dce5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:04:29 -0500
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4C35AB9D-277D-41AE-8364-83EC1A782F4C@pmjones.io>
References: <50BD013E-CF72-414C-BBC0-A7A2E45CBDDB@pmjones.io>
 <D2321EFF-6D87-422A-BCC3-875820ADF8E2@pmjones.io>
 <C2A122BA-052B-4AFB-900E-93858BF50F7E@koalephant.com>
 <0B40E6E5-342F-4D81-9CAA-A0C0739A7718@pmjones.io>
 <C3C15896-923D-4386-A991-329D0FCE7CC9@koalephant.com>
 <102D234E-BC5D-42B2-ABC4-93980C1F76A4@pmjones.io>
 <a46d0ba9-2981-4c58-afb1-f648c499450e@www.fastmail.com>
 <9c8064d1-52cf-c31d-f023-e323b5c2dce5@gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2)
From: pmjones@pmjones.io ("Paul M. Jones")

Hi all,

> On Mar 14, 2020, at 10:18, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> On 13/03/2020 20:36, Larry Garfield wrote:
>>=20
>>> * The RFC by design is trying to take the super-globals and make =
them OOPy; no more, no less.
>>> * The super-globals are not based on HTTP.  They're based on CGI, =
which is sort of but not quite an HTTP request.
>>> * So... call it CgiRequest/CGIRequest?  (I am also ignoring =
capitalization.)  Because that's what it is: It's CGI request data =
wrapped up into an object, no more, no less.
>=20
> This makes a lot of sense to me.

I too find this appealing. That prefix would net these class names:

- CgiRequest
- CgiResponse
- CgiResponseSender

The only confusion I think might arise is a consumer saying, "I'm not =
using CGI, I'm using (fcgi|apache|etc)".

Turning it over in my mind, I wonder if maybe a `Sapi` prefix would be a =
better alternative along this path, especially since these objects =
relate to the "interface between web server and PHP." =
<https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.php-sapi-name.php> A `Sapi` =
prefix would net us:

- SapiRequest
- SapiResponse
- SapiResponseSender

The only obvious objection is that the SAPI list includes 'cli'. While =
it not strictly outside the realm of the RFC, it certainly is not the =
focus; but then, tests running at the command line will be under the =
'cli' SAPI, so there's at least some sort of rationalization for it.

Overall, I think `Sapi` looks better than `Cgi`, and certainly better =
than `Server` or the other names we've considered.

Any further thoughts on naming?


> I also just realised that it would make sense to rename $_SERVER in =
the object, the same way $_GET has become "query" and $_POST has become =
"input". Maybe $request->cgi or something?

I sympathize with the desire to rename (or even restructure) the =
apparent catchall of `$_SERVER`. But I am still reluctant to do so, =
especially as no other researched projects use a different name here =
(whereas some have replaced `$_GET` with `$query`, etc).

Does anyone besides Rowan long for a different property name here? What =
are your suggestions, if any?


--=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