Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127006
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <059201dba2ee$35c7bc00$a1573400$@glaive.pro> <f6eeee8ab562c6f60e426794a51154b1@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <f6eeee8ab562c6f60e426794a51154b1@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:21:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM0CcxjM4GrJH9iadkTi+n+1f9YK+ERMiO+mJDO+CdY1JgmcAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Usable classes?
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: Juris Evertovskis <juris@glaive.pro>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ee90b0631b5be4c"
From: zsidelnik@gmail.com (Eugene Sidelnyk)

--0000000000002ee90b0631b5be4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> The wording =E2=80=9Cspicy=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cheretical=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=
=9Cliterally unusable=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cvibe=E2=80=9D, the use
> of ChatGPT, and the current calendar date requires me to ask:
>

Actually, if we put aside all of this, and think about it more seriously,
personally I myself find it somewhat tedious to have every class have
interface for the sake of being able to decorate it.

Everything we expose as api for the client code normally should have an
interface, and usually it ends up with superficial name: either suffixed
with Interface (I know it is in PHP), or prefixed with I (C#), or just a
normal name, while the actual class is suffixed with Impl (Java), or any
other naming that only shows the problem of superficial separation.

In my opinion, it could be a good thing to consider if we could do it more
easily.

It reminds me of C++, where every class has .h file with headers without
actual implementation (IOW, interface, client code uses it), and the actual
implementation in .cpp file. Though the two are still physically separated,
they still logically make the same unit.

Having the ability to implement the class, we'd not need to suffix
interfaces with Interface all around where there's only one implementation
of it. On the other hand, it still makes sense to keep normal full fledged
interfaces, since these are usable when there are multiple different
implementations (say, we have BankTransactionsGateway as the interface, and
PrivatBankTransactionsGateway, MonoBankTransactionsGateway as
implementations), since in this case interface is a normal expected
abstraction, that should be kept separate.

Thank you

>

--0000000000002ee90b0631b5be4c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The wording =E2=80=9Cspicy=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Ch=
eretical=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cliterally unusable=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cvibe=E2=
=80=9D, the use <br>
of ChatGPT, and the current calendar date requires me to ask:<br></blockquo=
te></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Actually, if w=
e put aside all of this, and think about it more seriously, personally I my=
self find it somewhat tedious to have every class have interface for the sa=
ke of being able to decorate it.</div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0</div><div di=
r=3D"auto">Everything we expose as api for the client code normally should =
have an interface, and usually it ends up with superficial name: either suf=
fixed with Interface (I know it is in PHP), or prefixed with I (C#), or jus=
t a normal name, while the actual class is suffixed with Impl (Java), or an=
y other naming that only shows the problem of superficial separation.</div>=
<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">In my opinion, it could be a =
good thing to consider if we could do it more easily.</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It reminds me of C++, where every class has .=
h file with headers without actual implementation (IOW, interface, client c=
ode uses it), and the actual implementation in .cpp file. Though the two ar=
e still physically separated, they still logically make the same unit.</div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Having the ability to implem=
ent the class, we&#39;d not need to suffix interfaces with Interface all ar=
ound where there&#39;s only one implementation of it. On the other hand, it=
 still makes sense to keep normal full fledged interfaces, since these are =
usable when there are multiple different implementations (say, we have Bank=
TransactionsGateway as the interface, and PrivatBankTransactionsGateway, Mo=
noBankTransactionsGateway as implementations), since in this case interface=
 is a normal expected abstraction, that should be kept separate.</div><div =
dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Thank you=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--0000000000002ee90b0631b5be4c--