Go Kudo wrote on 9/4/21 23:00: > Indeed, it may be true that these suggestions should not be made all at > once. If necessary, I would like to propose to organize the RNG > implementation first. > > Do we still need an RFC in this case? I'm not sure I'm not fully understand > the criteria for an RFC. Does this internal API change count as a BC Break > that requires an RFC?
Yes, since re-organizing the RNG implementation is a major language change that affects extensions and other downstream projects, this requires an RFC. >> Personally, I don't see the benefit of including this OOP API in the core. > > On the other hand, can you tell me why you thought it was unnecessary? > Was my example unrealistic? You also said, in reply to Dan Ackroyd: > Either way, I'll try to separate these suggestions if necessary, but if we > were to try to provide an OOP API without BC Break, what do you think would > be the ideal form? The OOP API appears to be a wrapper around the RNG functions. The only thing it gains by being in the core is widespread use, but it loses a lot of flexibility and maintainability, since the API will be tied to PHP release cycles. By doing this as an OOP wrapper in userland code, you're not restricting yourself to release only when PHP releases, and you can work with the community (e.g., the PHP-FIG) to develop interfaces that other projects might use so they can make use of their own RNGs, etc. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
