Hi Tim, Le mar. 1 juil. 2025 à 16:29, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> a écrit :
> Hi > > Am 2025-06-09 17:11, schrieb Larry Garfield: > > I also fleshed out the __get mention with an example that shows what > > you can already do today, and in fact could since 8.1 when readonly was > > introduced. The hard guarantee of idempotency has never actually been > > there. (This also speaks to Claude's concern.) > > I don't think this really resolves Claude's concern. While it is > certainly true that the guarantees do not currently hold, I don't > believe this is strong enough of a reason not to provide for stronger > guarantees in a *newly introduced feature*. The point of property hooks > is for me that “dynamic properties” are easier to reason about compared > to `__get()`. As a user when accessing a proper `readonly` property, I > do not want to check if there is a property hook that might result in > non-readonly behavior. As an engine developer I want to be able to > optimize based on the `readonly`-ness of a property. Without such > guarantees, the “readonly” keyword does not provide value to me. > > I also believe the LazyProduct example to be broken, since lazy-loading > individual properties might result in an object that is internally > consistent if the database changes in-between. Here are two situations that are perfectly valid use cases for the example: - event-sourced / versioned entities in the DB, where the state of an object cannot change in the backend - lazy-parsed network payloads, where one parses only part of some JSONs on demand (mongodb and symfony/json-streamer do such things already) Nicolas
