laminas/laminas-i18n

[RFC]: PSR-16 (cache) compatibility

Closed this issue · 4 comments

cedric-anne commented

RFC

Q A
Proposed Version(s) 3.0.0
BC Break? Yes/No

Goal

Change caching logic to be compatible with PSR-16.

Background

There is currently no way to use translation caching feature with a standardized cache component. Indeed, caching logic is only compatible with laminas-cache component.

It could be interesting to make the cache logic compatible with PSR-16.

Considerations

Main impact would be a change in methods signatures.

It could be possible to maintain a compatibility with direct usage of \Laminas\Cache\Storage\StorageInterface instance, in order to prevent intoruction of BC break (and so propose this feature in a 2.12.0 version), but IMHO, it could be preferable to remove it, in order to keep the code simple.

Proposal(s)

  • Change Laminas\I18n\Translator\Translator::factory() options to accept only Psr\SimpleCache\CacheInterface in cache entry.
  • Change Laminas\I18n\Translator\Translator::setCache() to accept Psr\SimpleCache\CacheInterface|null as $cache argument.
  • Change Laminas\I18n\Translator\Translator::getCache() to return Psr\SimpleCache\CacheInterface|null.
  • Adapt internal usage of cache instance to use Psr\SimpleCache\CacheInterface methods.
froschdesign commented

Indeed, caching logic is only compatible with laminas-cache component.

Right, because the caching features was added in 2012, before the PSR standard. 😉

…it could be preferable to remove it, in order to keep the code simple.

Code and maintenance. The task for this component is not to create a compatibility layer, but to use available standards directly.

cedric-anne commented

In fact, PSR-16 would be more appropriate, as this component requires only simple get/set/delete cache operations. If you agree, I could rewrite the RFC description to replace PSR-6 by PSR-16.

froschdesign commented

@cedric-anne

If you agree, I could rewrite the RFC description to replace PSR-6 by PSR-16.

PSR-16 is a good choice for this package. 👍

cedric-anne commented

Proposed design was not accepted (see #50 ). Another proposal using Decorators pattern have to be proposed.