Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128854
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8DGbFnQzjt3s9CcOBwhp+MUOV+K3U=yY=ULOTdUXaOLHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bcd8253c-04f3-4046-b51f-2e387e215f6d@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8BfP7h5rpDrjigu0oWK4Z+aRaqGjgzEFS_mDXRhq19vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b9fd3ec-50ca-41e4-985a-274f886df8b3@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8C5GD+F2KdCZTtZwFbc2rk_4yGgdiak8fs9y5Z3UU_zxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2e39e211-c816-41db-a079-f2c6b3934e0a@app.fastmail.com> <CAKXKfQtO+yoFB1=6zonwgGRpx1YExBNSkcjpso51aJ59YzaDLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <436d4ede-c08e-4e7d-9ae2-8342f7f827ed@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <436d4ede-c08e-4e7d-9ae2-8342f7f827ed@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 16:19:52 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8CdXxYZ9=zwZdt0rohMALkNhQwCcwnJPnnmxVjVc42iWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC Stage 4
To: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

> Would it be better to instead of having ->awaitCompletion (which feels li=
ke an implicit implementation of Awaitable without an explicit implmentatio=
n -- which is the part that was bothering me), maybe having something like =
->joinAll() or ->joinOnCancellation()?
> That way someone like me won't come along and wrap them in an Awaitable b=
ecause it looks Awaitable.

For example, you have an interface `DataBaseAdmin` with a `removeDB()`
method and a class that implements it.
You need to be able to delete the database, but with an additional
condition. So you create a decorator class with a method
`ContextualDBAdmin::removeDBWhen($extraRules)`.

As a result, the decorator class is logically associated with the
`DataBaseAdmin` interface.

The question is: **so what?**

> It also might be a good idea to make specifying a timeout in ms mandatory=
, instead of a taking an Awaitable/Cancellation.

The idea is correct, but there will definitely be someone who says
they need more flexibility.
And it's true you can create a `DeferredCancellation` and forget to
finish it. :)

There are a lot of such subtle points, and they can be discussed endlessly.
But I wouldn=E2=80=99t spend time on them.

> It also might be good to provide a realistic looking example showing a "b=
ad case" of how this is dangerous instead of simply saying that it is, show=
ing how a scope is not a 'future',
> but a container, and preemptively mention TaskGroups, linking to the futu=
re scope (which it should also probably be listed there as well).

1. It=E2=80=99s very difficult to write a realistic example that=E2=80=99s =
still small.
2. The `TaskGroup` or `CoroutineGroup` class is left for future
discussion. In the final documentation, it will be exactly as you
suggested.