Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81322
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54C92683.6020305@php.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 19:12:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Levi Morrison <levim@php.net>
CC: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net>	<CAFMT4NpjFSycCVrSUfBBgfJEJv=4Yw8cpmQ-45JWf=75ptr8Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMT4NqUU21HGuOf1qZiHP8MvzG4q=o8G99UN5ushLZLh3ydtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

On 28/01/15 18:58, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net
> <mailto:levim@php.net>> wrote:
> 
>         Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on
>         August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add
>         pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00
>         UTC on
>         Friday, February 6th.
> 
>         https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote
> 
> 
>     I wish you had pinged the list before opening the vote. I know there
>     were a few people who wanted to make comments but have just been
>     very busy. For example, I have been dealing with the return types
>     RFC which has soaked up all of the time I have for working on PHP
>     projects. 
> 
>     Some feedback: I feel the RFC is not clear about the advantages and
>     disadvantages of including this package. Mostly, the RFC is "hey I
>     have this package can we include it in core?" I feel like it's
>     fairly incomplete as to *why* we should include it. There is a fair
>     amount of work done in user-land for these types of utilities, and I
>     think without a more balanced discussion we'd be giving this
>     extension a distinct advantage.
> 
>     If we allow it to remain in voting phase despite these issues, I
>     have to vote no simply because I don't feel like there is enough
>     information presented in the RFC for anyone except current pecl_http
>     users to make a good decision; that's hardly a good situation for
>     the language as a whole.
> 
> 
> 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.

Well, there's been hardly any activity on the RFC for over five months,
if one didn't have the chance for review in this time frame then the
topic is probably not interesting enough for her.

But I already guessed, that there wouldn't be a real discussion until I
slapped the label VOTE on this RFC.

-- 
Regards,
Mike