Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78455
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1414655336.2624.228.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>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1410261047380.4012@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<BLU437-SMTP60D9697FF20A5AD3E5C439E2910@phx.gbl>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1410291648210.13538@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<1414655336.2624.228.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:56:11 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU6qLRgrFzXc5_bZU5nxoeWLu4oxi9nHXQa3YK2B_vyCnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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)

>         This is new information to me, I was lead to believe that phpstorm were
> happy to invest time in it.
>
>         I asked bob for the xml stuff to be reverted from 5.6 and master
> yesterday and be developed elsewhere.
>
>         This now *must* happen, it doesn't belong in php-src at this point.
>
>         If development of a remote protocol is to be carried out, it *must* be
> carried out in an experimental branch of php-src, or on krakjoe/phpdbg.
>
>         About scope, we never intended to write a remote debugger suitable for
> everything, we were pushed down that road by what people seem to want.
>
>         phpdbg is fundamentally different to xdebug, it cannot be loaded in any
> SAPI, it doesn't even make sense to talk about using it in the same way
> as xdebug, it does not and can not do all the things.
>
>         I'm quite happy for phpdbg to have better remote abilities, I even said
> that we should use dbgp https://github.com/krakjoe/phpdbg/issues/105
>
>         I'd be even happier if we left that to xdebug, we never wanted to focus
> on that in the beginning.
>
>         The remote ability that phpdbg had at the beginning was for no more
> than giving people uncomfortable with using a shell, or not able to use
> a shell, an option. It worked, but was arguably terrible, and an
> afterthought.
>
>         I think it would be better for everyone if we dropped the idea of
> support for remote debugging, I won't stop it going ahead if bob still
> wants to work on it, but I do regard it as feature creep.

I see a clear usecase for remote debugging and shell. Same shell usage
as now but with remote host support. I do that a lot for many other
languages, testing stuff in various VMs. It is amazingly handy to be
able to do that.

As of 5.6, I am not sure  either with other big changes as 5.6 is
stable now, huge changes (and not well tested, builds were broken
f.e.) should be done after (public) discussions, if necessary.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org