Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120521
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2023 14:14:57 +0100
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1t=E9_Kocsis?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xXjMP+D5szYCZdWqe2pdQTPOMbuFEtJGZeoeTYBcJFOrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5C8xXtCVHaxwzmAW_eBxp_D6p7kww9svND=3AEeC9X6--YXg@mail.gmail.com> <eaaa805e-86b2-ce8c-5a24-c301260d16ac@php.net> <CAH5C8xUrNktmO=t1-357uE0UAZHe0O2zYdAxwE3a0Oo-MK7R=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH5C8xXjMP+D5szYCZdWqe2pdQTPOMbuFEtJGZeoeTYBcJFOrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <108411AD-DBC4-4436-8190-7569B7A0805F@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: =?US-ASCII?Q?Re=3A_=5BPHP-DEV=5D_=5BRFC=5D_=5BDiscussion=5D_Deprec?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ate_functions_with_overloaded_signatures?=
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

On 17 May 2023 08:35:18 BST, "M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis" <kocsismate90@gmail=2E=
com> wrote:

>Particularly, I have been wondering for a long time, why the original
>function includes "save_handler" in its name?
>The passed in handlers are not just "save", but also other kinds of
>handlers (e=2Eg=2E "read")=2E So I'm considering to use
>something like "session_set_handlers()" or
>"session_set_handler_callbacks()"=2E What do you think about these names?

I think that's a very good point, and I like the explicitness of "session_=
set_handler_callbacks" - this isn't a name people are going to need to type=
 often, so there's not much reason to keep it short=2E

If we go down that route, perhaps we should come up with a corresponding n=
ame for the object based version - "session_set_handler_object" perhaps? Th=
at would also mean the deprecation messages can be much simpler: if you're =
using the old name, you need to do something=2E

(There's another minor fringe benefit: once the old name is removed, it be=
comes available for users to polyfill if for some reason they're struggling=
 to change code that calls it=2E)

I'm still in two minds on the general concept of this RFC, as it is placin=
g a burden on users for the mostly minor convenience of maintainers; but I =
think you've done a good job responding to concerns and improving the propo=
sal=2E

Regards,
Hi M=C3=A1t=C3=A9,

Sorry I didn't get round to replying to this sooner, particularly this poi=
nt:

--=20
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]