Re: RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2)

From: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 22:12:24 +0000
Subject: Re: RFC: Server-Side Request and Response Objects (v2)
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-108589@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
Hi all, > On Feb 14, 2020, at 10:47, Benjamin Morel <benjamin.morel@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> What about $query and $body? That would be closer to the terminology >> used in HTTP RFCs. > > > The problem is that $body is typically used to get the raw message body as > a string or stream. > > I was thinking more something along the lines of $bodyParams, which is more > verbose but leaves no ambiguity: *$queryParams* and *$bodyParams*. I get the desire to disambiguate. But as an added consideration, there's a desire for consistency; when adding a -Params suffix to those names, it might then make sense to have $serverParams, $cookieParams, etc. Looking at it that way, I don't think a -Params suffix is necessary. I would think $query would be enough. As for the other name, the one for the $_POST equivalent, $body doesn't seem quite right to me; it seems a little close to $content. I've also been thinking about $values, $params, $parsedContent, $contentValues, $bodyValues, $contentArray, and other variations with and without prefixes and suffixes, but $input is the one that feels like the least-terrible alternative to $post for me, esp. given the connection to php://input. -- Paul M. Jones pmjones@pmjones.io http://paul-m-jones.com Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP https://leanpub.com/mlaphp Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP https://leanpub.com/sn1php

« previous php.internals (#108589) next »