Add Body implementations #42
Conversation
|
At Laracon EU right now. Best to not expect much from me till Thursday ;-) |
|
No problem. A gitter conversation after that? |
|
Yup |
|
i think this indeed looks like a good idea. in this case we won't have a body factory but just ask users to instantiate the appropriate object. i think for that reason it makes sense to have the common use cases right here in the contract package. the MessageFactory should also know about the body interface i think and use it when passed a body. this does not need to be a hard dependency as |
Well, I am struggling with that a little. But creating a php-http/body package for just a few classes which are actually part of the core doesn't seem to make much sense. |
|
i would say dont exagerate with granularity :-) as long as those body impl
do not add new dependencies its fine to have them directly.
|
Actually the MessageFactory has nothing to do with the Client/Adapter thing. The MessageFactory package has been built for PSR-7 and I would like to make it as small as possible. However I see the reason behind why it would make sense to handle Body classes in the message factory: some content might need custom headers. To solve this I am going to add a |
|
I tried to find better names for body implementations. Opinions? |
Add Body implementations Remove Data body interface, common interface is not needed Add Content headers to Body Body is optional, add HttpMethods trait Refactored body implementations
|
Merging this anyway, naming can be solved as part of Terminology. |
Add Body implementations
| use Psr\Http\Message\StreamInterface; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Allows a more input types for body data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, probably mixed two different wording. "Allows special input as body"?
No description provided.