Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81032
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6HE6cf38xPpS6M9QvP_f7jrcK5Aka=1mJKPh30eb36Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:27:27 +0100
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <21F16F7C-CEBE-4498-A539-E2E66EE147F7@php.net>
References: <54C1261D.7080009@php.net> <CAEZPtU6HE6cf38xPpS6M9QvP_f7jrcK5Aka=1mJKPh30eb36Lg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] pecl_http
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)


> On 23 01 2015, at 02:40, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michael Wallner <mike@php.net> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>=20
>> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies
>> (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restart discussion on =
the
>> topic, whether it is feasible to add pecl_http as a bundled extension =
to
>> the core.
>>=20
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http
>>=20
>> [1] https://github.com/php/pecl-http-pecl_http/tree/phpng
>> [2] https://github.com/php/pecl-php-propro/tree/phpng
>> [3] https://github.com/php/pecl-php-raphf/tree/phpng
>>=20
>> For a test run with master, clone into ext/ and `configure =
--with-http
>> --enable-propro --enable-raphf` after buildconf.
>>=20
>> Let me know if it doesn't work out of the box for you.
>>=20
>> I'll have to update the corresponding links in the RFC to the phpng
>> branches and refresh the code coverage reports in the next few days.
>>=20
>> Reminder!
>>=20
>> Do not look at php.net/http; API docs are here:
>> http://devel-m6w6.rhcloud.com/mdref/http/
>=20
> I am still all for it :)
>=20
> By the way, I did not yet look more deeply to raphf and propro but
> that's something I like to discuss. If their feautures are useful for
> other parts of the core, extensions, bundled or not, we should
> consider moving them to the main APIs and not as two new independent
> extensions.
>=20

Well, I=E2=80=99m not the one to tell you that :) If I didn=E2=80=99t =
find it useful, I wouldn=E2=80=99t have built it.
Don=E2=80=99t hesitate, if there are questions about what they =
conceptually are trying to accomplish.

I think a short discussion about where to put the dependant code and =
noting the outcome in the RFC could be the way to go. I guess just a few =
people who think that pecl_http is about to be included would suffice.

Best regards,
Mike