Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78337
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.171 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP91A3DF66A339DD488BAF61E2910@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_5DB1FD65-AA2B-487C-92C5-DCF713A9CA94"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7v32YcE68ueMah2QYk5dRxBt3xzeXeq7k5HSdeYi8wtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:27:09 +0100
CC: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>,
 Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>,
 Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>,
 PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
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> <1414229963.2624.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> <CAEZPtU7N8rJRRj3YWOYE5rx4bZfvWWybdhr4U+Ua7utCb7O+vw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU436-SMTP18776034F3EACCDC8519BA3E2900@phx.gbl> <544BE9FE.3030603@sugarcrm.com> <1414268667.2624.118.camel@localhost.localdomain> <CAEZPtU7v32YcE68ueMah2QYk5dRxBt3xzeXeq7k5HSdeYi8wtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG nonsense (Was: Re: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Made phpdbg compatible with new engine: ...)
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

--Apple-Mail=_5DB1FD65-AA2B-487C-92C5-DCF713A9CA94
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> Am 26.10.2014 um 12:58 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>:
>=20
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>> I'd like to everyone to stay grounded in reality and say that we have
>> been checking code into php-src for months, very very few people have
>> expressed an interest in what we were actually doing, you aren't one =
of
>> them Stas.
>=20
>=20
> As much as I do not like the way this topic was brought to the list. A
> point has been raised.
>=20
> The chnages done in the latest patches, like the XML based protocol,
> are not small changes and will affect us, our users and external tools
> for a long time.I understand that discussing things too much prior to
> apply it takes time, energy and sometimes could kill the motivation,
> but this is how we reach consensus.
>=20
> I do not think it is too late to have this discussion, maybe part of
> the php specification too.I am a big fan of phpstorm, but it is by far
> not the only tool around. The discussions here, if we filter out the
> classic bashing and not so well formulated critics, try to figure out
> if the choices are actually the best ofr php, now and for the next
> years.
>=20
> So. Yes, I also have to ask, humbly, both of you to also stay grounded
> and accept to participate in a constructive discussion. Maybe push up
> a RFC, documenting the current XML protocol, see the pros/cons, etc.
> Other can also join this effort. I am sure we can find answers to all
> these questions soon, if we leave the sentimental parts of this
> discussions out of this, focusing on the actual technical and design
> facts.
>=20
> Cheers,
> --=20
> Pierre
>=20
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org <http://www.libgd.org/>

I=E2=80=99m fully aware that this is a phpng-style push in a bit smaller =
scope. And, despite whether that=E2=80=99s in spirit of open source =
(I=E2=80=99m not so sure if it really isn=E2=80=99t), it was something =
that had to be done. It=E2=80=99s not yet too late, we can still polish =
things which aren=E2=80=99t fine in the protocol.
Also, it was *necessary* to write the patch first to see how the =
protocol will also fit a bit into the code.
But then I had to restructure the code a lot. And later the thing got so =
big it got just too much maintenance work to simultaneously develop on =
the master branch (in krakjoe/phpdbg repo) and xml-protocol branch, so I =
merged everything. By that time I had a lot of unrelated features and =
the XML protocol then in master. (At that point I didn=E2=80=99t think =
it might become an issue). Then more than a week later I found it =
relatively stable (maybe some polishing left, but =C2=B1 stable). I =
considered to have more discussion before, but it=E2=80=99d have blocked =
all the other improvements pending (would probably have been too much =
work to separate things again and push). And one really needs a starting =
base before real discussion can take place (The patch alone IMO is =
anyway too big to be reviewed as is). So, I pushed.

But let us not discuss if it really was a good idea to have it done that =
way - or not. Please rather discuss where the protocol can be improved, =
if it=E2=80=99s missing some features etc.
There is a Markdown file about the protocol in sapi/phpdbg/xml.md, which =
is documenting the XML responses one might get. I=E2=80=99m aware that =
it=E2=80=99s not really well structured, I appreciate any help there.
But mainly, please first review if the design of the protocol is okay.

Quick info (because it already caused some confusion): input commands =
are the same for xml protocol than for interactive mode. It=E2=80=99s =
just the output which differs.

Bob

p.s.: I don=E2=80=99t regret to have chosen XML - I mean, it=E2=80=99s =
now to late to discuss whether to choose XML or not, but I don=E2=80=99t =
regret the decisions I made there.=

--Apple-Mail=_5DB1FD65-AA2B-487C-92C5-DCF713A9CA94--