Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102231
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.213.51 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4Npu__xm1i_RXD0wSMju8Kc_C5NvXFW9pgvY8fQRo9g8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EB6971A9-2344-4AA2-BAE6-C4FDC7CF267A@lvht.net>
 <CAL=_i_mq0jQ_87X8NC21fn=Y3XdWXWfk3ROWG4P0g68mOOEX5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4Npu__xm1i_RXD0wSMju8Kc_C5NvXFW9pgvY8fQRo9g8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:43:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL=_i_nmiB1Nc00ZXH=bODSL0K-Vf1ggE2HzbeufrFsGnGMMmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Cc: Haitao Lv <i@lvht.net>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d05a8056e6d06b6"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Fiber API
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

--0000000000007d05a8056e6d06b6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Morning,

I waited for a day for you to take action, you failed to do that.

To protect PHP, and your idea, I have moved the RFC back to discussion, I
would rather you had done that yourself.

Please do not attempt to bring this topic to vote until outstanding issues
are resolved, and until there is a clear consensus about the implementation
we are going to use.

Cheres
Joe


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:

> Replying to Joe's email because I didn't get the original.
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:09 PM Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is not ready for voting, please stop the vote.
> >
> > Bringing stuff to vote that is incomplete, where there is no clear
> > consensus, is dangerous.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Haitao Lv <i@lvht.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Internals,
> > >
> > > The RFC for fiber is now open for a vote. The RFC is available at
> > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fiber.
> > >
> > > Voting will be open until June 22th, 2018.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
>
> I don't think I've listed my complaints yet although I believe others
> already covered these:
>
>   1. I don't like `Fiber::` referring to the fiber running. I would
> prefer it being passed as a parameter.
>   2. As written and implemented this is not sufficiently different
> from generators. If fibers supported suspending/resuming C code as
> well then it may be powerful enough to justify it, however...
>   3. I don't feel this low-level building block is proven.
> Theoretically we should be able to build async/await functionality
> with it, which is I believe is the real goal. However, until I've seen
> it built, demonstrated, and critiqued I don't think we can claim the
> the low-level building block is sound.
>
> Sorry for not providing feedback sooner.
>
> Levi Morrison
>

--0000000000007d05a8056e6d06b6--