Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78593
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.109 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP878D512805F61A468099DCE2990@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411031940310.13538@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:22:14 +0100
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411031940310.13538@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHPDBG scope
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

> Am 03.11.2014 um 22:03 schrieb Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> This is based on an email conversation between Joe Watkins and me. I=20=

> asked him
> what the original scope of phpdbg was, and I've summarized his reply=20=

> here:
>=20
> - PHPDBG was originally envisioned as a "gdb" for the Zend VM, with =
gdb=20
>  like commands to debug, and step through code.
> - Support for breaking on an opline, something that no userland PHP=20
>  users would need.
> - Support for breaking on lines, was an additional step later.
> - For PHP programmers, which spend most of their time at the console.
> - Not "intended to cover PHP's primary domain of HTTP requests=E2=80=9C.=


That was the initial purpose of phpdbg, correct. But now it has outgrown =
of itself, I think.
But also, to begin something, you need concrete goals. In this case that =
was nice tiny debugger for cli PHP users and devs. Very true.

> Then later, they "documented a way that you could use it to emulate an=20=

> HTTP request, by setting those superglobals and executing your =
index.php=20
> - your code doesn't know the difference between a real request, and a=20=

> cli-like script with the same super globals set."
>=20
> And Joe indicates, that with that addition, the "flood gates opened". =
He=20
> also said that he "would still like to remain in that narrow scope,=20
> phpdbg is still useful in it's current (pre xml stuff) form." and that=20=

> it was never meant to "usurp xdebug", as "that is not where we were=20
> aiming, and it's an extremely unrealistic thing to even want.=E2=80=9C

It wasn=E2=80=99t with that addition the "flood gates opened". This =
addition came alongside with the initial xml protocol development =
(though in a separate branch), because I thought, if users are going to =
debug web apps, they most likely will need that.

And true, we aren=E2=80=99t trying to usurp xdebug, it was planned to =
coexist. Nothing like competition, but it was asked that we make it =
debuggable by an IDE. The xml protocol stuff just was a consequence of =
that request, to make it possible.

> And I very much agree that the above bullet points, is what phpdbg's=20=

> scope should be.

Also, why do we want an arbitrarily narrowed scope?

> Joe, if I got this wrong, then please say so :-)
>=20
> cheers,
> Derick

Regards,
Bob=