Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118729 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 39610 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2022 21:31:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2022 21:31:33 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D367B1804A9 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-pj1-f52.google.com (mail-pj1-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-f52.google.com with SMTP id e11-20020a17090a77cb00b00205edbfd646so13671017pjs.1 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ysZrnPSqPTuXdTy0pl229E4iryv/6d7A5hc43D1IQHo=; b=QNIDwWRGwy4GgEODWLFXD6LCW0aSv96ieH6+vNDkOk9afaNSeFVT4ZBVEUUu+66HYZ 0c+D23d5YNEmTKlSj3kpQhNqJlkKGswiHG5Zh3CbNFKqdQcXHCyAWInYTbqgQj/R9U33 RS7YpDBbO5OgGX6nBlMtGIt1R9J5AUxQ2mA7Sf9OyGtp1kcs9DFJi60zY7BvBNG4RURP ou7Bw6CXMr8v1oMWmJbWJHMq3xurmn5tQJSO1SVLzOB/F/wlWviM963PpDkCOGeH2kxI Rw8QL01oOe8jHL7jFPpQi9sddYTOr4yFLfn5wn7zmd0eav6Xa8TW6SwF/bR0mssMfhbr tIbQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ysZrnPSqPTuXdTy0pl229E4iryv/6d7A5hc43D1IQHo=; b=L6/fwYV43CJFF1rEJNdGuv7uYR0GAum/Gq5lAtyuqrenW6kMJkM0DNemLcPQVJ9GXT qtXaLjE4iqY8wR0FlBK+UrrDSWfTjZ8Vg7BAZUQynqDmjHUCUShus598JsphXOhQUkBh aEWrkhy9SoCipJmT3Y/vfP+4tLfvdGb7mHOUyb7pWGzc9Ma0/GGACwizfxaPnVBO6pU3 B3MCkvOCeLx5BaiiSDwj1j0A3WD8CAOfTnwKTMutBWz1IiRn2T3WMBAmaJTuxN6njCwx s7BBSqoQUQt/pkVIQgtq7BMSUWDpQbhhPK5/CGGvf7u4jVOv3OAh7ATtMhcK2cSpJXUf poLg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2IqZrKJLcChplnZHB7dDc/9VUt7EBPTFmJYUr0dihuX5WMPgLr Csw2UQFhSawjUoj1GhLCupzvcUtAxq3yVasByeNejuzH X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6ct35qXNMong+YLeAxhGdZkdlw8QN4nDmD7jHUoqxrYckoy6+lrG4hwCLZKGQbpihto0lsLAYZcwZWYM3U11I= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:704a:b0:17c:bbea:e9d4 with SMTP id h10-20020a170902704a00b0017cbbeae9d4mr12100147plt.65.1664746290892; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 23:31:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f54c805ea13f351" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: StreamWrapper Support for glob() From: timmy.almroth@gmail.com (Timmy Almroth) --0000000000004f54c805ea13f351 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I had a quick look to that PoC and it's basically just a quick wrapper > that depends on GLOB_ALTDIRFUNC. Unfortunately that's a non standard > extension that might be missing on some platform (e.g. alpine won't > probably work because from a quick look the musl libc doesn't seeem to > implement it - https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/glob.h ). > The code obviously needs more work and we will need bunch of tests for > this. Well obviously it's just a PoC but what I want to say is that > implementation is really main thing here and should also help to provide > more details in RFC. For example it's not currently clear that you would > change underlaying glob implementation on some platforms - quite important > thing to mention though. To be honest if there is a good implementation, I > think it's quite unlikely that the RFC will fail. > Hi Jakub. Indeed, it looks like Alpine users would not benefit from this. I made notes of this in the RFC, thank you. I understand you would have wanted to see the final PR. I do too. I will not be involved in producing the final PR and these were the conditions I agreed on. It's hard to find someone who will invest the time not knowing if all their work will carry through. I wish there were two steps in the RFC process. One voting for qualifying the idea/concept, and a second part to vote for the final PR. The first qualifying part could sort out the vast undesired ideas. And the second could attract coders and maybe allow for several PR proposals. Do the php team have any future intentions to maybe implement an RFC management system that could optimize both the creation, user experience, and voting process? --0000000000004f54c805ea13f351--