Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129830
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8B9XHzF5ND21-hNYtw26EnE+0b+W0Nv=wb_ayMmu4CbKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAEF1UFP0P+XbvK65ywz6c1OQPZHsfLXPrfyjP3Zp=p5Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMW7n8DbccuWQ+xs8MUJsgTa4V0bJEgSPueHQqKcVPTDYDgrTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMW7n8DbccuWQ+xs8MUJsgTa4V0bJEgSPueHQqKcVPTDYDgrTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 22:50:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAH6yZumbLoQzNzviv+A7uNSODg_nk+Lbg5WDo8wJ07Dgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] True Async RFC 1.7
To: Edmond Dantes <edmond.ht@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022cc9e0648ececfe"
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--00000000000022cc9e0648ececfe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I mentioned some things privately but will repeat them here as I think it's
important.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 8:19=E2=80=AFPM Edmond Dantes <edmond.ht@gmail.com>=
 wrote:

> Hello.
>
> > I think it would be more reasonable to target 9.0.
>
> I would prefer flexible targets. 8.6 if it works out.
> And if not, everything else.
> In this respect, the RFC is very flexible: it specifies what the
> functions should be, but does not require them to support
> asynchronicity right away.
>

I think PHP 9 is flexible target because we won't likely release it until
it's ready. PHP 8.6 is not flexible and likely this won't make it there
anyway.  I think it just too big and the BC break (global changes during
suspension) is not acceptable for minor release either. On the other side
PHP 9 can accommodate for big changes. In fact I think it would be good for
marketing to have a big feature for a big release.

Kind regards,

Jakub

--00000000000022cc9e0648ececfe
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>I mentioned some things =
privately but will repeat them here as I think it&#39;s important.</div><br=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D=
"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 8:19=E2=80=AFPM Edmond Dantes &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:edmond.ht@gmail.com">edmond.ht@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello.<br>
<br>
&gt; I think it would be more reasonable to target 9.0.<br>
<br>
I would prefer flexible targets. 8.6 if it works out.<br>
And if not, everything else.<br>
In this respect, the RFC is very flexible: it specifies what the<br>
functions should be, but does not require them to support<br>
asynchronicity right away.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think PHP =
9 is flexible target because we won&#39;t likely release it until it&#39;s =
ready. PHP 8.6 is not flexible and likely this won&#39;t make it there anyw=
ay.=C2=A0 I think it just too big and the BC break (global changes during s=
uspension) is not acceptable for minor release either. On the other side PH=
P 9 can accommodate for big changes. In fact I think it would be good for m=
arketing to have a big feature for a big release.</div><div><br></div><div>=
Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jakub</div></div></div>

--00000000000022cc9e0648ececfe--