Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81320
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.200 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:03:34 +0000
Cc: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <584E167F-CD06-4ACB-A33A-92DD178BCFD8@ajf.me>
References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net> <CAFMT4NpjFSycCVrSUfBBgfJEJv=4Yw8cpmQ-45JWf=75ptr8Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)

Hi Levi,

> On 28 Jan 2015, at 17:58, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote:
>=20
> Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and how =
they
> all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each component? I =
should
> hardly think in the time given this has been done. I'm not saying this
> extension is bad; I am saying that I don't think there's been time for
> anyone to properly evaluate whether it is or not.

Related to that: I should have asked about the size. By the looks of =
things pecl/http is a pretty big extension that covers an awful lot of =
functionality. The RFC=E2=80=99s lack of rationale for adding the =
extension is bad enough, but the size of the extension makes it worse. =
It=E2=80=99s a lot of classes (28 in total), so I think the RFC really =
needs a strong case to add all these different modules. Not only does =
the RFC need an overall rationale, but each module probably needs its =
own rationale: how does it compare to PHP=E2=80=99s existing functions =
for that feature, etc.?

Thanks.

--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/