Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78839
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 66.111.4.26 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C7179EEF-6DF4-4123-ABF4-1DC335A59C24"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
In-Reply-To: <CAL+t6cGzpE6YPKtd+Eg8mJMEV2o9TskCpBk+xSh=VeK-=5xANw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:47:25 -0500
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>,
 Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>,
 Patrick ALLAERT <patrickallaert@php.net>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <EB8FCB18-EF55-45A1-8F00-CD85FAF9CDD3@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> <CAL+t6cGzpE6YPKtd+Eg8mJMEV2o9TskCpBk+xSh=VeK-=5xANw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Standardized HTTP Interface
From: willfitch@php.net (Will Fitch)

--Apple-Mail=_C7179EEF-6DF4-4123-ABF4-1DC335A59C24
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net =
<mailto:willfitch@php.net>> wrote:
>=20
> Sherif - I=E2=80=99m just going to be straight here. I haven=E2=80=99t =
seen 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 considering 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 propose an alternative that is =
supportable by at least someone.  Your current proposal is not supported =
by anyone in this thread, and you still can=E2=80=99t see that.
>=20
> I admire and appreciate your efforts in making PHP better, but it=E2=80=99=
s 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.

It=E2=80=99s only a failure if you don=E2=80=99t learn from it and stop. =
I admire your efforts.

>=20
> 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.

The discussion would be more useful if you proposed an alternative.  So =
far, all I=E2=80=99ve seen is arguments why your original discussion =
could work.

>=20
> 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.

Nor should you. I do feel that time has been reached as there are =
multiple people that have retired from discussing this further. That is =
an indicator that this discussion has run its course.

>=20
> 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.

I am very interested in discussing this - but not in discussing the same =
proposal over and over.  We have beaten a dead horse, and the horse has =
come back as a zombie and been defeated twice over.  I actually believe =
your point is valid that the HTTP interface could use some work, but the =
approach you=E2=80=99re pushing just isn=E2=80=99t it.

>=20
> Thanks.


--Apple-Mail=_C7179EEF-6DF4-4123-ABF4-1DC335A59C24--