Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127511
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:38:48 +0100
To: internals@lists.php.net
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Module or Class Visibility, Season 2
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <a98a83fd-5486-4713-984b-d4fdb111d85d@app.fastmail.com>
References: <CADK1yXKg1xpneLs3vJ=nUAAGaVuBhqkEMgbBVaYfcBfQL2vkDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca5c49c9-948a-48f0-8b94-86fea583fbc4@app.fastmail.com>
 <673fd2db-b07f-439b-a4f2-e9519108d159@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAEUnE0dxRwjhKC64XHWkF3bNRLgjkgSJ9oMajRPfwLoDWy3x-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <78641D8B-AF1D-4912-920A-D75A37C32F05@rwec.co.uk>
 <CAEUnE0dVyQ9NQonEBU6wkKM+WsyLXt68jAGYjsz270w_Fa8=Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF275E74-F6AE-4357-8586-2FF17DC84FB5@rwec.co.uk>
 <CAEUnE0eR-0c=pDxgFrB4n60rGescZDVzOgb4uJbYK1aLvQE8=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <354cb888-97c4-4f8c-a0da-359d1e63c0f9@rwec.co.uk>
 <CAEUnE0dffEmFHV872btX5x_mbwmRmY1GCw+OPPrtr6sLD+u_zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <10D95B6E-094B-4EAE-A18A-AF6B795CB352@rwec.co.uk>
 <2adbff61-5e11-4d39-ab5c-d7950a4550a6@app.fastmail.com>
 <79E7FA26-2F5A-470C-B1DF-12CC46A08FE5@rwec.co.uk>
 <cda01760-9f0e-48e4-801d-f436243e088c@app.fastmail.com>
 <1c6dcd84-9016-48e1-971f-de7749cbdce8@rwec.co.uk>
 <D01184DD-EA70-41A4-9306-E09F904042C5@garsi.de>
 <a98a83fd-5486-4713-984b-d4fdb111d85d@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <44F59416-3922-4AF4-881A-C64F2C4E9345@rwec.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")



On 30 May 2025 08:57:34 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled=2Ecodes> wrote:
>
>I=E2=80=99m starting to think that maybe modules might be a bad idea; or =
at least, class/module visibility=2E
>
>As an anecdote, I was looking to extract a protobuf encoding library from=
 a larger codebase and create a separate library for Larry=E2=80=99s Serde =
library=2E During the extraction I realized that many of the classes and fu=
nctions I was relying on actually used @internal classes/functions=2E If =
=E2=80=9Cmodule=E2=80=9D visibility were a thing=E2=80=A6 would my implemen=
tation have been possible?
>
>In other words, if visibility comes with modules; there really needs to b=
e some kind of escape hatch=2E Some way to say, =E2=80=9CI know what I=E2=
=80=99m doing, so get out of my way=2E=E2=80=9D


Isn't this exactly the same as any other "access control" feature?

We have private/protected methods and properties, final methods and classe=
s, readonly properties; other languages also have sealed classes, module an=
d/or file private, etc=2E All of these are ways for the author of the code =
to express how they intend it to be used, and to protect users against *acc=
identally* violating assumptions the code is relying on=2E

They are of course not *security* measures, as they can be bypassed via Re=
flection or just editing the source code=2E

If you're using someone else's code in ways they didn't intend, that's up =
to you, but you may need to make changes to do so, i=2Ee=2E fork it rather =
than relying on the distributed version=2E=20

In your example, the author clearly marked that those classes were interna=
l implementation details; if you use them directly and later update the lib=
rary, you risk your code breaking either completely or subtly=2E If you cop=
y them into your own codebase, you are free to remove the "@internal" annot=
ations, or future "module private" declarations, and make whatever other ch=
anges are needed to suit your use case=2E

Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]