Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78838
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00A54283-A64E-404A-AFF7-0D3DC5169C40@php.net>
References: <CAL+t6cGt8B+X4ptWbyo6zm_xoyBOJC4QeiH6DjCxHX11CPWm_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACwt+JcYMS=+3t3e_JLHbNx-mgxUceiPOws2GZn9_QZ4HEo4Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cHDLHjTE3JK0md=KZ=AnRns6iYxfphzA3qnShermVeOmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1DDB6E05-3143-4A74-8B13-AF85222579BA@ajf.me>
	<CAL+t6cH92NgWnr-0gh9AfTxX_1r5Fd0=+M6SeZu53BT3nPHSEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<468730E8-4C38-49A3-A61A-59E107313D79@ajf.me>
	<CAL+t6cGPiqZXx2rQCzSV-PCzAAJtMWi6xteCU0GB0XjsB4wSpA@mail.gmail.com>
	<545C1823.8050404@sugarcrm.com>
	<D6194C8A-3375-4BA7-87C6-358A8247966E@ajf.me>
	<CAL+t6cHSze7ojSu8SsF0gb11-x-fozYGxYbW95TJ+uSAv-KShw@mail.gmail.com>
	<00A54283-A64E-404A-AFF7-0D3DC5169C40@php.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:38:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL+t6cGzpE6YPKtd+Eg8mJMEV2o9TskCpBk+xSh=VeK-=5xANw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04138ae309437505073e3984
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Standardized HTTP Interface
From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan)

--f46d04138ae309437505073e3984
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net> wrote:

>
> Sherif - I=E2=80=99m just going to be straight here. I haven=E2=80=99t se=
en support for
> your proposal at all in this thread.  You continue to try and make this
> case, but it continues to be shot down with absolutely valid issues, and
> your only responsive action is to argue back.  Why aren=E2=80=99t you con=
sidering
> alternatives?  Everything - and I do mean everything - that you want is
> available in pecl/http, and there=E2=80=99s already an RFC to get it into=
 core.
> Why can=E2=80=99t you get behind that and either support it, or move to p=
ropose an
> alternative that is supportable by at least someone.  Your current propos=
al
> is not supported by anyone in this thread, and you still can=E2=80=99t se=
e that.
>
> I admire and appreciate your efforts in making PHP better, but it=E2=80=
=99s time
> to go back to the drawing board on this proposal.  Everyone is against it=
,
> and I feel this thread=E2=80=99s patience is running thin.
>


I think you're looking too closely at the problem to have an objective
view. While I appreciate your continued input and feedback, I don't believe
you're fairly judging my motives or my objectives. Who says I'm not
considering alternatives? You have to keep in mind the RFC is still in
draft. I'm technically not even putting up for discussion yet because I've
failed to make a coherent proposal. I get that. I'd still like to hear what
others have to say. I will make my own assessments of the collective facts.
In the mean time I'm OK with the discussion of my initial proposal being
objectionable. I gladly embrace failure as I expect to learn from it.

I'm not sure why it is you feel as though me having a technical discussion
with the community equates to me agreeing with everyone else's opinion or
ending a discussion on the note that it is no longer useful because
everyone disagrees with me.

I gather valuable knowledge from disagreement and intend to pursue those
disagreements until I can reach a fully objective outlook on all of the
moving parts at hand. I don't wish to abandon this discussion because the
initial proposal has no support.

I'm sorry if you feel that you are no longer interested in the discussion,
but can you at least refrain from cluttering the discussion aggressively
with your synopsis? Everyone is providing valuable objective outlooks and
those that have no more objectivity have seemingly refrained from further
discussion. That I'm perfectly OK with. What I'm not OK with is someone
that feels they must terminate the discussion because there is
disagreement. I am in the very process of understanding others'
disagreements. Please do not impede on my efforts by assuming you have any
idea what is going on in my head.

Thanks.

--f46d04138ae309437505073e3984--