Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128003
Message-ID: <1363C627-2ACA-4567-83CF-CCB4ACD393AF@nicksdot.dev>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D02A911-4FEF-4CE4-BDED-98EF4DE6490E"
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Readonly property hooks
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:44:15 +0700
In-Reply-To: <CA+NMNO1cW=wAapt7=Pird4ON08MvaZr=23gTD1zJ5X8-Vq9QXA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>,
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
To: erictnorris@gmail.com
References: <1e8634d7-ac1a-4025-b4e2-1948aabf5251@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMzRQTdDNsF_LPpNKUbVROTWjDbN2uDw-j2PrL3xp7qASA62GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <be533915-2b0d-460d-a5ea-76fe98fc4080@app.fastmail.com>
 <f4e4057b19a5ed9de7ad92215e78d58c@bastelstu.be>
 <cedce076-82de-4391-8a03-409690added9@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=o0PpE2b8TD9reKvO053UAu5RxTaFA7g+Huu7GozxrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <46857A6D-5EAF-44AF-A2DE-9B40AF8DE8C8@gmail.com>
 <41241c3d-a601-4fb8-9f32-976bea3b660e@app.fastmail.com>
 <CA+NMNO2xo5tCrKLSJ770gPhm2K9u+YmQpPmPRSobLn1Ki1TZ_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <922a21f4-c28c-4824-b1d6-0c53ae080ffb@app.fastmail.com>
 <CA+NMNO1cW=wAapt7=Pird4ON08MvaZr=23gTD1zJ5X8-Vq9QXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: php@nicksdot.dev (Nick)


--Apple-Mail=_8D02A911-4FEF-4CE4-BDED-98EF4DE6490E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

Hey Eric,

> On 11. Jul 2025, at 10:08, Eric Norris <eric.t.norris@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Regarding the caching option suggested elsewhere, the semantics
> mentioned seem confusing to me. The body is called on subsequent gets,
> but only the value from the first get is returned? I would expect that
> would be very confusing to developers. If the body wasn't executed on
> subsequent invocations that might make more sense to me, but then the
> get hook essentially is an init hook, and why not call it as such.

I just before pushed a third implementation idea which addresses this.
It also no longer requires a separate cache. It uses the store itself.
A link to the branch is in the description of the original PR.

> Also, just to throw the idea out there - maybe start with init hooks
> *only* for readonly properties? Is there something to this, especially
> if you consider "readonly" actually "writeonce"? Maybe this plus
> disallowing set hooks?



Personally, I don=E2=80=99t see added value in adding yet another hook =
`init`.
I also don=E2=80=99t see how this would solve the `get` hook issue?
As a user I want to be able to have a `get` hook in readonly classes. =
For instance, for formatting.
In my last answer to Tim I showed an example of what I would expect from =
`readonly` properties.

Cheers,
Nick=

--Apple-Mail=_8D02A911-4FEF-4CE4-BDED-98EF4DE6490E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hey Eric,<br =
id=3D"lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div>On 11. Jul 2025, at 10:08, Eric Norris =
&lt;eric.t.norris@gmail.com&gt; wrote:</div><div><br>Regarding the =
caching option suggested elsewhere, the semantics<br>mentioned seem =
confusing to me. The body is called on subsequent gets,<br>but only the =
value from the first get is returned? I would expect that<br>would be =
very confusing to developers. If the body wasn't executed =
on<br>subsequent invocations that might make more sense to me, but then =
the<br>get hook essentially is an init hook, and why not call it as =
such.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I just before pushed a third =
implementation idea which addresses this.</div><div>It also no longer =
requires a separate cache. It uses the store itself.</div><div>A link to =
the branch is in the description of the original =
PR.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
id=3D"x-apple-selection:start"></span>Also, just to throw the idea out =
there - maybe start with init hooks<br>*only* for readonly properties? =
Is there something to this, especially<br>if you consider "readonly" =
actually "writeonce"? Maybe this plus<br>disallowing set =
hooks?</blockquote></div><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span =
id=3D"x-apple-selection:end"></span></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div=
>Personally, I don=E2=80=99t see added value in adding yet another hook =
`init`.</div><div>I also don=E2=80=99t see how this would solve the =
`get` hook issue?</div><div>As a user I want to be able to have a `get` =
hook in readonly classes. For instance, for formatting.</div><div>In my =
last answer to Tim I showed an example of what I would expect from =
`readonly` =
properties.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Cheers,</b></div><div>Nick</div></=
body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_8D02A911-4FEF-4CE4-BDED-98EF4DE6490E--