Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78595 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96092 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2014 21:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Nov 2014 21:34:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.83 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.83 smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.83] ([108.166.43.83:34694] helo=smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5C/93-10620-8C4F7545 for ; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:34:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 66A5D18047A; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:33:58 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp3.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 1E2FA180417; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:33:58 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com Received: from Stass-MacBook-Pro.local ([UNAVAILABLE]. [74.85.23.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.3.2); Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:33:58 GMT Message-ID: <5457F4C5.8000609@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:33:57 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damien Tournoud CC: PHP Internals References: <5457EF60.1020103@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Filtered unserialize() From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Coming late to the discussion. Was there any discussion to make the > new argument a callback instead? Pass it the fully-qualified class > name, have it return true (the class should be loaded) or false (the > class should not be loaded). Deprecate the `unserialize_callback_func` > mechanism at the same time. That was not discussed. It can be made this way, though it would be more complicated and have more moving parts, but that's not part of the present RFC. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/