Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126080
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:21:17 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?Q?M=C3=A1t=C3=A9_Kocsis?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>
Cc: ignace nyamagana butera <nyamsprod@gmail.com>, Niels Dossche
 <dossche.niels@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Add WHATWG compliant URL parsing API
In-Reply-To: <CAH5C8xV67frqOBCvLt73RM7QO86_pu40sHP5h71_kDRbKPtA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5C8xUb1O20ZDrOQNC=ckFxHUUWSK7sw_njQQzFBd0qgQqoww@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd61999c-1ebd-4765-9add-cd8065968965@gmail.com>
 <CAOV5rgYZ_s1of-igLFEK7oqqh6=3HeYv0=JvvKvvjkcp0F6Q9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xV67frqOBCvLt73RM7QO86_pu40sHP5h71_kDRbKPtA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57d09ef6591a4c70e60569b9de7ce330@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

Am 2024-08-26 09:40, schrieb Máté Kocsis:
> Please re-read the RFC as it shares a bit more details than my quick
> summary above: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/url_parsing_api

I have now finally found the time to go through the discussion thread 
and make a first pass through the RFC and have the following remarks.

1.

The RFC is not listed in the overview page: https://wiki.php.net/rfc

2.

I agree with Dennis' remark that the `Rfc3986Uri` and `WhatWgUri` 
classes must be final. The RFC makes the argument that:

> Having separate classes for the two standards makes it possible to 
> indicate explicit intent at the type level that one specific standard 
> is required.

Developers extending the classes could accidentally violate the 
respective standard, which nullifies the benefit of making invalid 
states unrepresentable at the type-level.

This also means that the return type of the “withers” should be `self` 
instead of `static`, which also means that the “withers” in the 
interface must be `self`. Perhaps this means that they should not exist 
on the interface at all. `DateTimeInterface` only provides the getters, 
likely for a similar reason.

3.

I believe the `UriException` class as the base exception should not be 
`abstract`. There is no real benefit to it, especially since it doesn't 
specify any additional abstract methods.

See also the PR introducing the Exception hierarchy for ext/random for 
some opinions / arguments regarding the Exception class design: 
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/9220

4.

I'm not sure I like the `Interface` suffix on the `UriInterface` 
interface. Just `Uri\Uri` would be equally expressive.

5.

I am not sure about the `*User()` and `*Password()` methods existing on 
the interface. As the RFC acknowledges, RFC 3986 only specifies a 
“userinfo” segment. Should the `*User()` and `*Password()` methods 
perhaps be specific to the `WhatWgUri` class?

-------

I'll give the RFC another read later and expect some additional 
commentary when I think about this more.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus