Hi
Am 2024-08-26 09:40, schrieb Máté Kocsis:
I have now finally found the time to go through the discussion thread and make a first pass through the RFC and have the following remarks.
1.
The RFC is not listed in the overview page: https://wiki.php.net/rfc
2.
I agree with Dennis' remark that the Rfc3986Uri and WhatWgUri classes must be final. The RFC makes the argument that:
Having separate classes for the two standards makes it possible to indicate explicit intent at the type level that one specific standard is required.
Developers extending the classes could accidentally violate the respective standard, which nullifies the benefit of making invalid states unrepresentable at the type-level.
This also means that the return type of the “withers” should be self instead of static, which also means that the “withers” in the interface must be self. Perhaps this means that they should not exist on the interface at all. DateTimeInterface only provides the getters, likely for a similar reason.
3.
I believe the UriException class as the base exception should not be abstract. There is no real benefit to it, especially since it doesn't specify any additional abstract methods.
See also the PR introducing the Exception hierarchy for ext/random for some opinions / arguments regarding the Exception class design: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/9220
4.
I'm not sure I like the Interface suffix on the UriInterface interface. Just Uri\Uri would be equally expressive.
5.
I am not sure about the *User() and *Password() methods existing on the interface. As the RFC acknowledges, RFC 3986 only specifies a “userinfo” segment. Should the *User() and *Password() methods perhaps be specific to the WhatWgUri class?
-------
I'll give the RFC another read later and expect some additional commentary when I think about this more.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus