Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78322
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1414217636.2624.89.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <php-mail-d1dee1060d0e519b421e241f31037078549681831@git.php.net>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1410242103530.4012@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<1414217636.2624.89.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:19:37 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU70tZLPxhX-swOhRKH1h=ALvJxodpSGA4yCm9tBWA4cjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Bob Weinand <bwoebi@php.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made
 phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,


On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:

>> Although this patch does make it work with PHP 7, it also does do
>> something absolutely different: it reinvents a wheel by coming up with a
>> new XML protocol for debugging.
>>
>> So far I've been silent on PHPDBG, but seriously, is it really not
>> possible to cooperate instead of reimplementating something that already
>> exists? PHPDBG is difficult to use with its odd command line "commands".
>> And then I haven't even spoken about the pretentious "awesomesauce" on
>> http://phpdbg.com/ =E2=80=94 a domain that's not even under the PHP grou=
p's
>> control.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Derick
>
> Derick,
>
>         A few weeks ago, I was at a conference where you told a room fill=
ed
> with hundreds of developers that phpdbg was no good, because you don't
> know how to use it.
>
>         This is a strange sort of silence, and does not invite us to
> co-operate.

Well, not well played but I do not think arguing back and forth about
that will bring us anywhere. I will just skip any part of this
discussion about this kind of things.

>         When you invented dbgp there were other protocols in existence, n=
ot
> sure why we are expected to reuse a protocol. It so happens that the
> phpstorm guys working on integration seemed keen on something new. I
> don't see the problem in that. If the only reason it exists is for
> projects like phpstorm and they are actually going to put time into
> trying something new, then why the hell not.


While you are right from a principle point of view, I do think it
makes sense to implement something which is already a de facto
standard in the PHP world, well supported by various tools, etc. If
phpdbg would not be in core, I would not care much, as you said, it
would then be an independent project and you can do whatever you wish.
However it is not the case, phpdbg is in the core. Being in core means
it does affect how our users will work, use it, etc. Design decisions
like protocol used to work with external tools should be taken very
carefully. Adding yet another one does not sound very good at a first
glance.

Do you mind to enlighten us about the advantages of this new protocol
over the existing one? Or what are the limitations of the existing one
which lead you to the creation of a phpdbg protocol?

>         I'm not sure why it matters what kind of language we use on phpdb=
g.com,
> not sure why you think it should be under the control of the php group
> either.

Well, phpdbg is part of the core. As such it reflects what PHP is,
does or says. I do not have a problem with anything I have seen on the
project site but this is something to keep in mind.

>         If you had wanted to co-operate, you could have spoken to me at t=
hat
> conference in person, or to any of us in IRC, on any day. You chose to
> do what pleased you.
>
>         We should be allowed to do the same.

Yes and no, as I wrote earlier in this reply.

Thanks for the great work and let try to sort that out :)

Cheers,
Pierre