> On 17 Sep 2023, at 18:28, Niels Dossche <dossche.ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandru
>
> On 9/17/23 11:59, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 02:17 Niels Dossche <dossche.ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We'll add a common abstract base class DOM\Document (name taken from the
>>> DOM spec & Javascript world).
>>> DOM\Document contains the properties and abstract methods common to both
>>> HTML and XML documents.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes looks a lot better.
>> Great work overall! And thank you for taking on this effort.
>>
>> I would have a small suggestion: to make the abstract class an interface.
>> This will allow even more flexibility on how things can be build further,
>> suggesting composition over inheritance.
>> In user land we cannot have interfaces with properties (yet) but in php
>> internal interfaces we have example with interface UnitEnum that has name
>> property, extendes by BackedEnum that adds value property.
>>
>
> Right, we discussed the use of an interface internally too.
> Indeed as you suggest, we chose an abstract class over an interface because
> of the property limitation.
> Looking at UnitEnum & BackedEnum
> (https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/bae30682b896b26f177f83648bd58c77ba3480a8/Zend/zend_enum.stub.php)
> I don't see the properties defined on the interface. In practice, all enums
> get the properties of course, just not via the interface.
> So as we cannot represent the properties on the interfaces (yet), we'll stick
> with the abstract class for now.
>
>
>> Thank you,
>> Alex
>>
>
> Kind regards
> Niels
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
Hi Niels,
Can you expand on the reasoning for two of the decisions in your proposal? I'm
not sure I really see the reason/benefit :
1. fromX() methods are on the individual classes, rather than the parent, which
as I understand it, you're using as a poor-mans interface with properties. I'd
have thought that at the very least the parent should declare those methods as
abstract
2. Why "fromEmptyDocument()" rather than just allowing `new
DOM\{XML,HTML}Document` via a public constructor?
The only mention of 'constructor' I see in the email or the RFC is the line
below:
> the properties set by DOMDocument's constructor are overridden by its load
> methods, which is surprising
But I don't really see how making the constructor private and forcing use of a
static method changes this aspect, at all - it just introduces a different way
to create an instance.
Otherwise, it's great to see some activity on DOM handling classes.
Cheers
Stephen
