Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78323
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pthreads.org from 209.85.212.175 cause and error)
Message-ID: <1414229963.2624.103.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Bob Weinand <bwoebi@php.net>, PHP
	Developers Mailing List
	 <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:39:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU70tZLPxhX-swOhRKH1h=ALvJxodpSGA4yCm9tBWA4cjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <php-mail-d1dee1060d0e519b421e241f31037078549681831@git.php.net>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410242103530.4012@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	 <1414217636.2624.89.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <CAEZPtU70tZLPxhX-swOhRKH1h=ALvJxodpSGA4yCm9tBWA4cjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made
 phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)
From: pthreads@pthreads.org (Joe Watkins)

On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 16:19 +0700, Pierre Joye wrote:
> 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/ — a domain that's not even under the PHP group's
> >> control.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Derick
> >
> > Derick,
> >
> >         A few weeks ago, I was at a conference where you told a room filled
> > 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, not
> > 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 phpdbg.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 that
> > 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

Pierre,

	I wasn't involved in the conversations during it's development very
much. You will have to wait for bob or someone from the phpstorm team to
fill in the blanks. Suffice to say that they found a reason to work on a
new protocol, details I don't know.

	It had it's own remote protocol when it was merged, but it turned out
to be pretty useless for those people interested in using it remotely. 

	This is only a development of that original feature.

	I of course recognize that we are in some sense representative of the
PHP project, however, we are talking about words like awesomesauce, not
profanity, or anything offensive whatever.

	Bob done all the work on this, in record time. It's totally crappy that
he'll wake up today to this nonsense, he should be feeling pleased with
himself. He worked very hard on it.

Cheers
Joe