[Cache] ArrayAccess for Collection

[Phil Sturgeon]

This thread started to balloon as they always do, so we're back to one-thread one-topic. 

Paul Dragoonis suggests we strip ArrayAccess out of the Collection interface. (I know some of you don't want a collection, but if it stays then I want ArrayAccess gone).

Generally speaking, stuff like ArrayAccess is in this instance implementation-level sugar and not something we need to be defining in our interfaces. Folks can implement it if they like, or they can... not. We also removed it from the HTTP Message PSR, and removed it from Poolnterface

[Jeremy Lindblom]

If we end up keeping Collection, let's only make it an iterator and nothing else. There's probably a better name for it then too. How about just:

> ItemIteratorInterface extends \Traversable {}

[Robert Hafner]

Originally the getItems function *did* return a Traversable. If we only make ItemIteratorInterface a Traversable and nothing else, it's the equivalent of not keeping the Collection stuff.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/dd82710d-be0e-4a7d-8796-fed74a18ac96%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Phil Sturgeon]

Another reason to kill collections then it seems.

[Paul Dragoonis]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Jeremy Lindblom <jerem...@gmail.com> wrote:

If we end up keeping Collection, let's only make it an iterator and nothing else. There's probably a better name for it then too. How about just:

> ItemIteratorInterface extends \Traversable {}

This is exactly what I said (in case you haven't realised :)

 

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:05:32 PM UTC-7, Phil Sturgeon wrote:

This thread started to balloon as they always do, so we're back to one-thread one-topic. 

Paul Dragoonis suggests we strip ArrayAccess out of the Collection interface. (I know some of you don't want a collection, but if it stays then I want ArrayAccess gone).

Generally speaking, stuff like ArrayAccess is in this instance implementation-level sugar and not something we need to be defining in our interfaces. Folks can implement it if they like, or they can... not. We also removed it from the HTTP Message PSR, and removed it from Poolnterface

[Phil Sturgeon]

Seems like a consensus on  ItemIteratorInterface extends \Traversable {} ?

[Robert Hafner]

That simply brings us back to the pre-Collection code, which is all the more reason to remove it.

Robert

On Apr 3, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Phil Sturgeon <em...@philsturgeon.co.uk> wrote:

Seems like a consensus on  ItemIteratorInterface extends \Traversable {} ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to php...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/c6eb77b9-90fa-4f56-ae7f-a2ce9a7faad0%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Dragoonis]

bye bye ArrayAccess!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/470DA237-2C86-4D24-8D4F-BC0937E516E1%40tedivm.com.

[Larry Garfield]

How would we do multi-set with just Traversable?  Is that robust enough to allow compatible multi-set implementations to actually have multiple parallel set operations?

We added it to support multi-set, so that's the important part to address.  (Just traversable is sufficient for multi-get, but we want to include multi-set, too.)

--Larry Garfield

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CAKxcST97TnPp1h7Xv4hBy4P7M83pZWkkfw_KVe-uq%2BF2k7KrKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Hafner]

Lets remove it like the group wants and then come up with a working proposal. My thoughts are that it should be moved into a new branch (cache-multi) with a PR issued against the main proposal, and as we work through these issues and get them resolved we merge the changes back in.

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5341E640.2090206%40garfieldtech.com.

[Paul Dragoonis]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

How would we do multi-set with just Traversable?  Is that robust enough to allow compatible multi-set implementations to actually have multiple parallel set operations?

We added it to support multi-set, so that's the important part to address.  (Just traversable is sufficient for multi-get, but we want to include multi-set, too.)

If it's traversable then you can iterate and set individually, or compile a new list of items to be set in a single transaction.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5341E640.2090206%40garfieldtech.com.