Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122092
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGgaK7+w_zdp30Pi5nJ-y+GPEkfc2xHfFUW+DwdpNtY8iPjMHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgpkW65ngNVrtu3oZ3_yAw4W+Qe1DsQ9LN-pfet_Psdy==Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABdc3WrjXkZSwfi+6mxDizKURhy7w8VUXoiAXEEytnwpGCEaUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOWwgp=Eo+dJbXVzumOJkrAQE8dG+eVZahJbd4326J8Ut6YtEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOWwgp=Eo+dJbXVzumOJkrAQE8dG+eVZahJbd4326J8Ut6YtEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:05:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CABdc3Wo9Lu7=dFv1=9r1R6Ezw0H13Pe1ntcx8G6-TBHUntrG6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
Cc: Max Semenik <maxsem.wiki@gmail.com>, Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024f4c5060e07c10e"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] NotSerializable attribute
From: michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Marcin_Brzuchalski?=)

--00000000000024f4c5060e07c10e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=C5=9Br., 3 sty 2024 o 10:09 Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>
napisa=C5=82(a):

> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> =C5=9Br., 3 sty 2024 o 08:12 Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.co=
m>
>> napisa=C5=82(a):
>>
>>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> Hi, I'd like to propose a new attribute, #[NotSerializable]. This
>>> > functionality is already available for internal classes - userspace
>>> should
>>> > benefit from it, too.
>>> >
>>> > The RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/not_serializable
>>> > Proposed implementation: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/12788
>>> >
>>> > Please let me know what you think.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Regarding the inheritance-related behavior ("The non-serializable flag =
is
>>> inherited by descendants"), this is very unlike any other attributes, a=
nd
>>> this actively prevents writing a child class that'd make a parent
>>> serializable if it wants to.
>>>
>>> To me, if this is really the behavior we want, then the attribute shoul=
d
>>> be
>>> replaced by a maker interface.
>>> Then, a simple "instanceof NotSerializable" would be enough instead of
>>> adding yet another method to ReflectionClass.
>>>
>>
>> This should be possible without ReflectionClass, see
>> https://3v4l.org/N3fmO
>>
>
> Sure.
>
> My main point is : why use an attribute? this should be an interface to
> me. All semantics match an interface.
>
>
>> From the serialization libraries you can find similar attributes
>>
>
> Those a very different, because they tackle the problem from the
> *external* angle: the attributes there describe how a system *external* t=
o
> the class itself should best serialize an object. There, attributes make
> sense, because they enrich the description of the class without forcibly
> telling what to do with the object
>
> But in the RFC, we're talking about the object deciding itself how it
> should be (not) serialized. This is enforced and thus belongs to the
> typesystem - not to an attribute.
>

But then what should implement the NotSerializable interface?
If you want to ignore a string-typed property there would be no option to
mark it with a NotSerializable interface
Consider "baz" property in this example:

class Foo {
    protected int $bar =3D 1;
    #[NotSerializable]
    protected string $baz =3D 2;
}

Cheers,
Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski

--00000000000024f4c5060e07c10e--