Re: _REQUEST and variable_order
| From: | Sam Barrow | Date: | Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:50:05 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: _REQUEST and variable_order | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-35275@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:39 -0800, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This topic was already discussed here but never arrived to a conclusion,
> so I will raise it again.
> The Problem:
> We have $_REQUEST superglobal, which is often used to abstract GET/POST
> requests. However, in most cases we do not want GET/POST variables to
> mean the same as cookie and environment variables. We can avoid that by
> setting variables_order to 'GP' but then we lose _SERVER and _COOKIES
> which still can be very much useful. We cannot also reliably use
> something like 'CGP' since while it won't allow cookies to override
> GET/POST we still have no way of not accepting cookie that has no
> matching GET/POST. I think this should be cleaned up so that _REQUEST
> behavior would conform its use case.
>
> The proposal(s):
> 1. One way to fix it is to create a new .ini request_order that would
> control just _REQUEST.
>
> 2. Other solution would be to keep variables_order but drop 'C' parsing
> from _REQUEST - i.e. make _REQUEST never include cookies. I don't know
> how many people really need cookies together with get/post in REQUEST.
I like this. $_REQUEST is used by me and most PHP developers I know
solely for the purpose of abstracting $_GET and $_POST. But user input
never comes directly from cookies (what user fills in a login form by
setting cookies?), so I don't see a point of including them.
> 3. Yet another solution would be to make superglobals independent of
> variables_order - i.e. _COOKIE would always exist even if
> variables_order doesn't have the letter. I actually don't see any reason
> having JIT to remove any of the superglobals - if you don't use them,
> with JIT you don't pay for them. And with COOKIES it's not that it would
> be a big cost anyway - how many cookies could you have?
> Of course, it'd be more substantial change which could break some apps
> relying on some quirks of current behavior.
>
> So, what do you think on this?
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
> stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
> (408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
>