[Messenger] Don't make EnvelopeItemInterface extend Serializable #28247
Conversation
|
Should this be done in 5.0 for other classes as well? I haven't done a full search across the codebase, but I know that at least the TokenInterface does this. |
|
@iltar yep, but unfortunately those are not experimental anymore. I'd love to remove the "extends" also. Can we? |
|
I'm not sure if the serialize/unserialize methods will be called without the interface. What we could do, is implement the methods in the interface extending |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we tried and already see the limits (like in #28164 for example) so let's remove the Serializable (so we can even provide the opportunity to use the Symfony Serializer instead of (un)serialize 👌)
@nicolas-grekas can you update the CHANGELOG & UPGRADE files?
842da1d to
cd9ff9d
Compare
|
CHANGELOG & UPGRADE updated |
cd9ff9d to
2beda89
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nicolas-grekas : Purpose was to keep serialization under control and make users think about how to serialize it reliably. Otherwise, PHP serialization is a mess in case of refactoring and for BC layers.
But actually, I'm fine with removing it, you're right.
|
Thank you @nicolas-grekas. |
…rializable (nicolas-grekas) This PR was merged into the 4.2-dev branch. Discussion ---------- [Messenger] Don't make EnvelopeItemInterface extend Serializable | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | master | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | yes (on experimental API) | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | - | License | MIT | Doc PR | - `Serializable` is a broken interface, see e.g. https://externals.io/message/98834 I don't think we should force ppl to implement it anywhere. Actually, it isn't required to be able to serialize an object, and it doesn't enforce making a class serializable (as the `serialize()` method can throw). What was the purpose of the removed logic? ping @sroze @ogizanagi Commits ------- 2beda89 [Messenger] Don't make EnvelopeItemInterface extend Serializable
…elope items (sroze) This PR was merged into the 4.2-dev branch. Discussion ---------- [Messenger] Uses Symfony Serializer by default for envelope items | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | master | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | yes | BC breaks? | yes | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | #28164 | License | MIT | Doc PR | ø The original approach was to use `serialize`/`unserialize` for envelope items. It turns out it has limitations (see #28247) and reduces the compatibility with 3rd party systems (see #28164). This pull-request changes the existing mechanism by using Symfony Serializer by default. It keeps the `serialize`/`unserialize` mechanism to allow users of the experimental component to keep using it in 4.2 and allow to have a non-disruptive upgrade to 4.2. Commits ------- 9b575ab Uses Symfony Serializer by default for envelope items
Serializableis a broken interface, see e.g. https://externals.io/message/98834I don't think we should force ppl to implement it anywhere.
Actually, it isn't required to be able to serialize an object, and it doesn't enforce making a class serializable (as the
serialize()method can throw).What was the purpose of the removed logic? ping @sroze @ogizanagi