[RFC] ServerRequest and ServerResponse objects

Hi all, I have prepared an RFC on server-side request and response objects: wiki.php.net/rfc/request_response This extension provides server-side request and response objects for PHP. These are not HTTP message objects proper. They are more like wrappers for existing global PHP variables and functions, with some limited additional convenience functionality. This extension defines two classes in the global namespace: - ServerRequest, composed of read-only copies of PHP superglobals and some other commonly-used values, with methods for adding application-specific request information in immutable fashion. - ServerResponse, essentially a wrapper around (and buffer for) response-related PHP functions, with some additional convenience methods, and self-sending capability. The extension is available as a PECL package for installation and testing at: pecl.php.net/package/request I want to point out that I am not the author of the C code for this extension; John Boehr has done the work there, and I appreciate it a great deal. When I originally raised this topic in September, there were some questions left unanswered from Rowan Collins; I'll try to address them below. * * * Rowan asked why this would need to be implemented to as an extension or built into core: "Does it provide functionality that is hard to implement in a userland library?" It does. Among other things, making public read-only properties is difficult and hackish in userland. Making them remain read-only when a parent class is extended is (as far as I can tell) impossible. Both of those aspects figure prominently in ServerRequest. * * * Rowan also asked: "You mention that it is not just an HTTP wrapper, but although you mention researching other frameworks, I can't see any reference to PSR-7. What do you see as the relationship between your proposal and that standardisation effort?" While PSR-7 is not a framework, I get your point. ;-) For what it's worth, I was a sponsor on that proposal, so I'm relatively familiar with its history and purpose. I see the relationship as complementary. Those who want something that matches a formal HTTP model more closely can use one of the two popular PSR-7 implementations, or write their own. Or they can use pecl_http, for that matter, which I think PSR-7 ends up mimicking in significant ways. Those who want something that more closely matches core PHP functionality, or the way-of-working presented by many extant frameworks and libraries, might find this extension more in line with their needs. I certainly do. * * * Finally, Rowan brought this up: "Why is [ServerRequest] property-only, but [ServerResponse] method-only? The asymmetry feels awkward to me." I get why that would be. It's really an outgrowth of the asymmetry that already exists in PHP: $_GET, $_POST, et al. are properties representing the request, whereas header(), setcookie(), et al. are all functions for sending a response. Having said that, practical use of ServerRequest the intervening time has given rise to some methods for application-related convenience. The methods withUrl(), withInput(), and the various withParams() methods allow changing of immutable public properties on a clone of ServerRequest. (As a side note, immutability here is relatively strict. ServerRequest allows only null, scalar, and array values in these cases, and recursively checks that arrays themselves have only null, scalar, and array values.) * * * I know it's a busy time of year for everyone, so I expect this discussion to go on longer than two weeks. This is not a language change; my understanding is that means a simple majority vote is needed to pass. Thanks in advance for your comments and criticism. -- pmj