Re: [VOTE] Same Site Cookie RFC
| From: | Niklas Keller | Date: | Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:10:15 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE] Same Site Cookie RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-102956@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Am So., 22. Juli 2018 um 18:52 Uhr schrieb Christoph M. Becker
<cmbecker69@gmx.de>:
>
> On 22.07.2018 at 18:40, Niklas Keller wrote:
>
> > Am So., 22. Juli 2018 um 18:11 Uhr schrieb Pedro Magalhães <mail@pmmaga.net>:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:47 PM Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It'd be great to use an OO approach instead of "magic" array keys,
> >>> e.g. like this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/amphp/http/blob/9c0ba2f2ebfae482b3ad7a0475eb3d1f74d87949/src/Cookie/CookieAttributes.php
> >>
> >> While I do agree with the sentiment:
> >> - That would have been an even greater departure from the original RFC..
> >> - This is currently a purely procedural API. If this were about an
> >> hypothetical
ResponseHeaders::setCookie it would
> >> definitely be the way to
> >> go.
> >
> > why does it have to be an all or nothing approach? It's perfectly fine
> > to have a function that accepts an object.
>
> We have an already accepted (29:3) RFC[1], which just lacks
> implementation. Departing from the solution, which we agreed upon, in
> some details (such as suggested by Pedro) might be okay, but using
> objects instead of arrays is certainly not.
We can always have a second RFC that changes a previous RFC. It'll
land in PHP 7.4 then, but that's not an issue for me.
Regards, Niklas