Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63128
Return-Path: <tomas.creemers@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 97941 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2012 07:40:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 Sep 2012 07:40:01 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tomas.creemers@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tomas.creemers@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tomas.creemers@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.42 mail-pb0-f42.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.160.42] ([209.85.160.42:45563] helo=mail-pb0-f42.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 63/53-05716-0D679505 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:40:01 -0400
Received: by pbbrp8 with SMTP id rp8so1842863pbb.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=9L0/GD0O6emv4LwrRlbtsDxyYxtOG4gq/KQjpGdMlu4=;
        b=IqwNnPOa9RkAsd+JY7BtC/mgPws1bs9k9mO92fjTJWIi5+/4S/5m8zflp1lbhDGX4I
         Pdz+sMdGietgmC3Jk/VuFXg8yYXZrX75SndBzbCv9iSE03NbnEY/DLR9DIHuLZwN1IG8
         pbZO1hWJYM+F26aUjritLuOd9cK4ikNeHuuac6rd6747p6Ioi9URnGrpgZfKybcColdJ
         PHhEl5Twn93pwVnRE0G8ZVxwWXGRzcFl5VXpTMsKI9mhntY41jtreE73pa+hXqxm6Ck/
         XFLbVRzhb7TKXw+XJanQMC6BINIRJazOJO3Ee/In27UwAJrGHt5DFpK2pJCBBCinuGC3
         Mt4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.226.195 with SMTP id ru3mr5086751pbc.149.1348040398123;
 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.122.98 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALtuQzC4e2Sn_BHinFAPdVrz8Oc_d6wCqTr=AscMChH29NSENw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO1hux8mmUsy4badiNjxTGMubaduD1gkgbw4ZK1Me_MwGwLybA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtuQzC4e2Sn_BHinFAPdVrz8Oc_d6wCqTr=AscMChH29NSENw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:39:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAO1hux9+4QK2sVX9+4110ksa9qDpUpfDhFJvyzkXcBHrFoFWvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC: Implementing a core anti-XSS escaping class
From: tomas.creemers@gmail.com (Tomas Creemers)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2012/9/19 Tomas Creemers <tomas.creemers@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> If this is going to be implemented as a class, what is the advantage
>> of instantiation for this? Unless I'm missing it, I would propose that
>> the functions are made static.
>>
[snip]
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tomas
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess the reason is the same like the one, why you just should avoid
> static methods at all. But only one example: Try to extend the class and
> then _always_ use the extended one ;)
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian


Isn't that what late static binding is for? It enables the use of the
extending class (if any) from the base class.

I really don't see what class instantiation would add to this design
(if it's going to be a class at all). It doesn't have
instance-specific state.


Regards,
Tomas