Re: _REQUEST and variable_order
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:27:21 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: _REQUEST and variable_order | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-35279@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
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.
>
> 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?
They are all about equivalent. Even #3 would need some sort of ini
override since otherwise it removes some flexibility we have today.
There are setups that specifically rely on disabling $_COOKIE to force
code to go through other mechanisms to get at the cookies.
Perhaps a combination of 1 and 2. By default drop cookies from
$_REQUEST but have an ini override for the few cases where the app
actually relies on this behaviour. I have seen multi-page forms where
instead of bouncing previous inputs along in hidden fields it gets
transmitted in cookies and they use $_REQUEST to keep track of all of
the responses.
-Rasmus