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

> On Mar 16, 2020, at 12:04 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io> wrote: > > Turning it over in my mind, I wonder if maybe a Sapi prefix > would be a better alternative along this path, especially since these objects relate to the > "interface between web server and PHP." > <https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.php-sapi-name.php> A > Sapi prefix would net us: > > - SapiRequest > - SapiResponse > - SapiResponseSender > > The only obvious objection is that the SAPI list includes 'cli'. While it not > strictly outside the realm of the RFC, it certainly is not the focus; but then, tests running at the > command line will be under the 'cli' SAPI, so there's at least some sort of > rationalization for it. > > Overall, I think Sapi looks better than > Cgi, and certainly better than > Server or the other names we've considered. > > Any further thoughts on naming? That works well IMO. >> I also just realised that it would make sense to rename $_SERVER in the object, the same >> way $_GET has become "query" and $_POST has become "input". Maybe >> $request->cgi or something? > > I sympathize with the desire to rename (or even restructure) the apparent catchall of > $_SERVER. But I am still reluctant to do so, especially as no other > researched projects use a different name here (whereas some have replaced > $_GET with $query, etc). > > Does anyone besides Rowan long for a different property name here? What are your suggestions, > if any? I don't think this is important anymore if we call it Sapi or CGI. It was only an issue IMO if if we were still wanting to call it Request. But again, just my opinion. -Mike