Constructor signature - new Pusher(...) about pusher-http-php HOT 6 CLOSED

I would go with the first option. As long as any boolean type parameters are kept in the 4th argument array. I always feel passing boolean parameters in that way is much better for readability. I do think the Pusher\Config class should be kept though!

from pusher-http-php.

@tanuck To clarify: would you'd prefer:

use Pusher\Pusher;
use Pusher\Config;

$pusher = new Pusher(new Config('my-app-id', 'my-app-key', 'my-app-secret', array('encrypted' => true)));

For me:

• the two use statements is one too many and an unnecessary additional step
• it results in a bunch of extra parenthesis that people can make mistakes with results in one more annoyance on the way to getting things working

But happy to add this as a +1 for the Config based constructor.

from pusher-http-php.

No. That option is a bit too cluttered for me. And I agree about the 2 use statements. I was happy with your first example from option 1:

$pusher = new Pusher('my-app-id', 'my-app-key', 'my-app-secret', array('encrypted' => true));

But keep the Config class for internal use. Instead of cluttered the Pusher class with additional config related properties.

It would be good to decide on this and merge the implementation before looking at #68

from pusher-http-php.

👍 Yep - good call on keeping the internal class.

Agree RE #68 too.

from pusher-http-php.

Okay 👍

from pusher-http-php.

Fixed in #69.

from pusher-http-php.