Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129221
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8DiWK6y=76cRTpx+6eGmBgytd2HWs2C-OH5rd8WNLffFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8Dp3siTp0NKGc=-8aNg=Mqoxug9Osgn2399P1v4wi3n5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAGJhR-EK_tjOBC78HUyiL0m_vJ-_toJgLdT8LLx+hREig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8CC8sq8hs2gLsDcr-78GehzHk+cAMR=pRsL9gim3=ovbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEKnhAEoBdU-LpoXAGpAT0VNiphLWEfWqsJ6L-1NoQ0m0eYzTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAEoBdU-LpoXAGpAT0VNiphLWEfWqsJ6L-1NoQ0m0eYzTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:25:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8AAf0Cn04c_xNmw6oV8fka3bh1Qgs1rKM4N+4kDYHUmGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP True Async RFC Stage 5
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

Hello Jakub.

> I think it would be good to see the implementation that can cover the cur=
rently proposed API and try to strip it as much as possible so it doesn't c=
ontain much more than that. We saw that PR for the async API was already qu=
ite
> big and we didn't really get any agreement there partially also because t=
here was no user of that and it was not possible to have any tests for it (=
without writing them in C).
> So what I'm thinking is that if some minimal version that implements just=
 this (e.g. reactor can be just dummy because there is no io atm. and other=
 things can be stripped too), then the voters would get better idea what th=
ey are > dealing with and could even try it out.

I understand what you mean.

** Regarding simplifying the code.**
Any =E2=80=9Csimplification=E2=80=9D essentially comes down to removing stu=
b files and
the C classes that implement the PHP classes. This is a relatively
small part of the project.
For example, removing Scope from the C code doesn=E2=80=99t make much sense=
,
because it turned out (even unintentionally) to be a very convenient
structure for tracking a group of coroutines.
In other words, no major changes to the code are expected before the
PR review begins.

** Reactor. **
Since the reactor uses libUV and we currently do not plan to provide a
pure-C implementation, we agreed to move it into a separate library.

** Testing. **
Some functions that do not involve I/O can be covered by unit tests.
This is a small portion of the API.
However, covering all the remaining code that performs I/O with unit
tests is not practical. We could try to emulate the OS and so on=E2=80=A6 b=
ut
I think you understand that the result is not worth the effort.
This means we cannot avoid integration tests.

P.S. Personally, I would prefer to agree on the PR first and the RFC
afterwards. As I mentioned earlier, the code is more important than
the RFC, because it defines the real relationships and logic, while
the RFC only =E2=80=9Cdescribes=E2=80=9D them. But we live in a world that =
follows its
own rules.

--- Ed