Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129217
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8DiWK6y=76cRTpx+6eGmBgytd2HWs2C-OH5rd8WNLffFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8Dp3siTp0NKGc=-8aNg=Mqoxug9Osgn2399P1v4wi3n5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMW7n8Dp3siTp0NKGc=-8aNg=Mqoxug9Osgn2399P1v4wi3n5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:30:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAGJhR-EK_tjOBC78HUyiL0m_vJ-_toJgLdT8LLx+hREig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP True Async RFC Stage 5
To: Edmond Dantes <edmond.ht@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000070f190643775e4f"
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--000000000000070f190643775e4f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:02=E2=80=AFAM Edmond Dantes <edmond.ht@gmail.com=
> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> Today marks two weeks since the RFC was published.
>
> I need to apply a few minor fixes that Luis pointed out.
>
> If anyone else is working on comments for the RFC, please let me know.
> If there are no objections, we can start the vote on Monday.
>
>
I thought about it and I think we should have this with implementation
otherwise the whole thing is kind of pointless because we might not get it
merged if some internals disagreement happens. It will be also impossible
to get anything bigger than what is proposed now reviewed (read that we
won't be likely able to merge the complete implementation in one go). In
other words if this passes, it will just means that the API is ok but there
is nothing actionable. In addition, I think some people might be even
voting against it if there is no implementation that they can review.

It means there should be a PR implementing exactly what is in this RFC
(minimal stripped version of your current implementation) IMO.

Cheers

Jakub

--000000000000070f190643775e4f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Nov =
13, 2025 at 10:02=E2=80=AFAM Edmond Dantes &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:edmond.ht@=
gmail.com">edmond.ht@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">=
Hello all.<br>
<br>
Today marks two weeks since the RFC was published.<br>
<br>
I need to apply a few minor fixes that Luis pointed out.<br>
<br>
If anyone else is working on comments for the RFC, please let me know.<br>
If there are no objections, we can start the vote on Monday.<br><br></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>I thought about it and I think we should have thi=
s with implementation otherwise the whole thing is kind of pointless becaus=
e we might not get it merged if some internals disagreement happens. It wil=
l be also impossible to get anything bigger than what is proposed now revie=
wed (read that we won&#39;t be likely able to merge the complete implementa=
tion in one go). In other words if this passes, it will just means that the=
 API is ok but there is nothing actionable. In addition, I think some peopl=
e might be even voting against it if there is no implementation that they c=
an review.</div><div><br></div><div>It means there should be a PR implement=
ing exactly what is in this RFC (minimal stripped version of your current i=
mplementation) IMO.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><di=
v>Jakub</div></div></div>

--000000000000070f190643775e4f--