Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:78840
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<EB8FCB18-EF55-45A1-8F00-CD85FAF9CDD3@php.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:53:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL+t6cF+O3T6wZ-WU5RvMJri1e388nXZc3ScXMDJKZij4hn8Cg@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=047d7bf0d0f613252805073e6f02
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New Standardized HTTP Interface
From: theanomaly.is@gmail.com (Sherif Ramadan)

--047d7bf0d0f613252805073e6f02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Will Fitch <willfitch@php.net> wrote:

>
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly.is@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 s=
een 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 co=
nsidering
>> 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 int=
o 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 propo=
sal
>> is not supported by anyone in this thread, and you still can=E2=80=99t s=
ee 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 i=
t,
>> 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 belie=
ve
> 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'v=
e
> failed to make a coherent proposal. I get that. I'd still like to hear wh=
at
> others have to say. I will make my own assessments of the collective fact=
s.
> 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.
>
>
> I'm not sure why it is you feel as though me having a technical discussio=
n
> 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 coul=
d work.
>
>
> 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 multipl=
e
> people that have retired from discussing this further. That is an indicat=
or
> that this discussion has run its course.
>
>
> 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 an=
y
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

Will, once again, you continue to make unfounded assumptions about me and
about the discussion. I get that you don't like what I'm saying. I just
feel that you've stated it enough times now :)

Remember, email doesn't disappear. People can always scroll back up and
reread what you've already said.

Thanks again for your reiterated input. I'd like to continue reading what
others are adding to the discussion like Stas, which had not voiced in
opinion prior to your little interjection.

--047d7bf0d0f613252805073e6f02--