Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81346
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.218.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54C94A9D.8000904@beccati.com>
References: <54C8D36E.7010803@php.net>
	<54C9338A.7020202@beccati.com>
	<54C9363D.6090102@php.net>
	<54C94A9D.8000904@beccati.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:50:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZzzvhXgdhr83yZqUEz6igyesnnfBSK1PaK13gEAqHOz1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com>
Cc: Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Matteo Beccati <php@beccati.com> wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 20:19, Michael Wallner wrote:
>>
>> On 28/01/15 20:07, Matteo Beccati wrote:
>>>
>>> As Nikita mentions, PSR-7 is under way and currently gaining some
>>> traction. At the moment the PSR-7 interfaces are designed to be
>>> immutable, although I that's still open for debate. If the RFC passes,
>>> we'd be taking a fairly strong position and pushing the current
>>> pecl_http implementation as a de-facto standard. Sure, PHP-FIG would
>>> still be free to come up with their own standard, but it just doesn't
>>> seem much fair to me.
>>
>>
>> Why is everybody so obssessed by the word "standard"?
>> What is "fair" supposed to mean in this regard?
>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't FIG stand for Framework Interoperability Group? I've been there
>> and wanted to start a discussion on the topic, but without success.
>
>
> Seen that too. Welcoming "BE GONE FOUL INTERNALS DEVELOPER" joke aside, some
> objections have been made. You didn't like them, you disappeared suggesting
> PHP-FIG to "play alone in your shady little shed".
>
> Since PSR-7 is being discussed now *and* pecl_http can't implement an
> interface that still is being discussed, I would rather vote "no" now and
> maybe change my mind in future if PSR-7 becomes a thing and pecl_http
> follows. Or PSR-7 fails, for that matter.
>

You're voting "no" because the FIG can't agree yet?
They've been discussing this for *at least* an year and iirc the first
PSR-7 coordinator gave up on it because he no longer believed in the
end result. What does that tell us?

I'm not saying that you should vote "yes", but it's one thing to look
at the FIG for opinions/suggestions/inspiration and completely
different if you imply that they should dictate how a PHP core
extension is implemented.

PHP-FIG is not an authority and I too am quite annoyed by the
excessive usage of the word "standard" when referring to a "PSR". They
are not standards, they are recommendations written by a
self-appointed group of people and mostly for their own usage. A group
of mostly very smart people indeed, and important figures in the PHP
community too, but not an authority.

Cheers,
Andrey.