Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56224 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69568 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2011 10:13:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 10:13:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=patrick.allaert@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.161.42 mail-fx0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.161.42] ([209.85.161.42:49419] helo=mail-fx0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2E/90-01205-2E3ABBE4 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:13:55 -0500 Received: by faan2 with SMTP id n2so2860204faa.29 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:13:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eUii6AWUc2cdvaoy+ZUX3VxjvLKxDCq+1IiZwdGpbnQ=; b=pWJEciT5W1I46RBG9RzOwCgB+bsY4XPef15+jU/v7dRl4V2u07HYXcLUL+QEx74gKS 7Utz0YLQZDVksYcAzQD2yb/J63i543VsxAMEFAXepZ8fjHxzSMPGNt58+UkyPnzyJ+QG J37mR4zDNevgw59+NJ+4lV9SgOqJsSb3KZmDA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.7.14 with SMTP id b14mr11430446fab.10.1320920030896; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) Sender: patrick.allaert@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.95.205 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:13:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <-4079824451837834664@unknownmsgid> <4EBB7A7B.9030303@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:13:50 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WZIrtnVDfz4dKvHJhi8kS3tfmsE Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Stas Malyshev , "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] SplClassLoader RFC Voting phase From: patrickallaert@php.net (Patrick ALLAERT) 2011/11/10 Pierre Joye : > hi Stas, > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote: >> Hi! >> >>> This attitude only makes me lose a lot of time answering questions >>> instead of focusing on actual RFC stability. I want to propose >>> something stable, I do not want to be pressured about should the RFC >>> exist or not. It only delays the real voting results. What I can do to >>> address this? >> >> I would concentrate on cleaning up RFC and bringing it to some state that is >> stable and that has some consensus behind it. Right now I see many people >> are against it. So I would address the concerns raised (provided it's >> possible), refine all unclear points and then maybe try again. > > The RFC is actually clean and implements PSR-0, it has been discussed > and approved by many PHP frameworks or projects. We are hiding > ourselves in the sand if we don't see that. Arguing about PSR-0 is > fine but that's not the place to do it. And as PSR-0 is already > approved, poeple with issues should bring them in the PSR-0 discussion > channel, for the next version of PSR. You're mixing stuff here. "RFC on PSR-0 support into PHP status" != "PSR-0 status" There is indeed no point discussing PSR-0 here, this is a standard (de facto or not, I don't care). However, *how* PSR-0 might be introduced into PHP, for those who uses it, is for sure not ready yet and certainly not approved! I'm all for having a PSR-0 loader in the core of PHP, but if I voted "No", that is because I think the RFC is not ready yet. > But blocking the only thing so many PHP projects have ever agreed on > is a major mistake. And it is a political and religious choice > (religious as in "php does not enforce standard"). Even for something > that does not enforce anything if not used. Some are blocking because they kinda feel forced if this is introduced. Ignore those, PHP wouldn't have bundled ext/mysql for the same reasons about 15 years ago. I guess that some voted "No" because of lack of consensus. There is a real need to clarify some of the valid concerns that have been addressed regarding the API proposed. > And as far as I can see, the RFC is approved as of now. That is simply not true. Patrick