Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:128983
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8DGbFnQzjt3s9CcOBwhp+MUOV+K3U=yY=ULOTdUXaOLHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8BxmAC56LZ4qA6oJp0kFhhPMuLdqfmzeSVQrf6woR9GyA@mail.gmail.com> <889d3042-7b3e-4152-bd8c-09bbcc967309@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <889d3042-7b3e-4152-bd8c-09bbcc967309@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 19:15:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8A8aZQ0=J04+tspNgYZfHFHnQ4AVVU-DSSNW6VxaD4jfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP True Async RFC Stage 4
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

Hello

> I am not sure how feasible this is, but would there be a way to split the=
 "async toggle" of IO operations off to its own PR/RFC?
> To me, that is by far the most important part of this RFC as that's the b=
iggest blocker for wider async adoption,
> but I'm not sure how many layers are needed above it to make it possible =
to toggle in a safe fashion.

Why is this considered the main blocker? (Or maybe I didn=E2=80=99t quite
catch the meaning.)
After all, this is precisely the part of the RFC that doesn=E2=80=99t actua=
lly
change the behavior from the user=E2=80=99s perspective inside a coroutine.

As for the PRs. There=E2=80=99s no doubt there will be several. I hope the =
PHP
core team will help with the code separation process and advise on the
best way to do it, since it=E2=80=99s not a trivial task.

As for the toggle switch. If a developer doesn=E2=80=99t use spawn, then wh=
y
toggle anything at all?
And even if they do, there=E2=80=99s still no difference =E2=80=94 the code=
 won=E2=80=99t
start executing =E2=80=9Cdifferently.=E2=80=9D

---
Best Regards, Ed