Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:130217
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2026 23:31:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5C8xXkpbfyvo0rcnj3vSMW19SH8f9D-Frn5hG5hjtP2iafSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Query Parameter Manipulation Support
To: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f0e3c064bfe07a5"
From: kocsismate90@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?=)

--0000000000008f0e3c064bfe07a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Everyone,

As I mentioned in a previous email of mine (
https://externals.io/message/129486#130077),
I recently separated the query parameter handling sub-proposal from
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uri_followup into its own RFC because it was way
too complex.
Therefore I'm officially opening its discussion.

After the separation, I reworked the proposal quite a lot: the single
biggest change
is that now, only a single class would be added: Uri\QueryParams instead of
both an RFC 3986
and a WHATWG URL compatible implementation.

The focus of the RFC is now to move away from the usage of the $_GET
superglobal,
which goal comes with two additional expectations:
- the new implementation should have comparable performance to $_GET
- the new implementation should support most capabilities of $_GET (e.g.
arrays)

The first one is probably straightforward to achieve, the latter one has
fundamental
problems: PHP's feature set (mostly: array support) is not compatible with
the WHATWG URL,
so some behavior likely wouldn't comply with this specification. That's why
the RFC
still has some TBD parts (e.g. Array API), or some contradicting info
related to some getters' and setters' signature/behavior.

Other than the API itself, the proposal doesn't have many questions, except
one thing: whether the new class should be readonly or not? I tend to make
it readonly, but I'm still not sure (since
this class can be used as a Builder).

Regards,
M=C3=A1t=C3=A9

--0000000000008f0e3c064bfe07a5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hey Everyone,<div><br></div><div>As I mentioned in a previ=
ous email of mine (<a href=3D"https://externals.io/message/129486#130077">h=
ttps://externals.io/message/129486#130077</a>),</div><div>I recently separa=
ted the query parameter handling sub-proposal from=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://=
wiki.php.net/rfc/uri_followup">https://wiki.php.net/rfc/uri_followup</a> in=
to its own RFC because it was way too complex.</div><div>Therefore I&#39;m =
officially opening its discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>After the separ=
ation, I reworked the proposal quite a lot: the single biggest change</div>=
<div>is that now, only a single class would be added: Uri\QueryParams inste=
ad of both an RFC 3986</div><div>and a WHATWG URL compatible implementation=
.</div><div><br></div><div>The focus of the RFC is now to move away from th=
e usage of the $_GET superglobal,</div><div>which goal comes with two addit=
ional expectations:</div><div>- the new implementation should have comparab=
le performance to $_GET</div><div>- the new implementation should support m=
ost capabilities of $_GET (e.g. arrays)</div><div><br></div><div>The first =
one is probably straightforward to achieve, the latter one has fundamental<=
/div><div>problems: PHP&#39;s feature set (mostly: array support) is not co=
mpatible with the WHATWG URL,</div><div>so some behavior likely wouldn&#39;=
t comply with this specification. That&#39;s why the RFC</div><div>still ha=
s some TBD parts (e.g. Array API), or some contradicting info related to so=
me getters&#39; and setters&#39;=C2=A0signature/behavior.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Other than the=C2=A0API itself, the proposal doesn&#39;t have many =
questions, except one thing: whether the new class should be readonly or no=
t? I tend to make it readonly, but I&#39;m still not sure (since</div><div>=
this class can be used as a Builder).</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</di=
v><div>M=C3=A1t=C3=A9</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

--0000000000008f0e3c064bfe07a5--