Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:81373 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56302 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2015 11:40:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 Jan 2015 11:40:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.199 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.199 imap11-2.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.199] ([192.64.116.199:43901] helo=imap11-2.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 10/B8-09212-84C1AC45 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:40:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A886C8800EB; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:40:53 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap11.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap11.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1sk1KjP2WVOp; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk (oa-res-26-240.wireless.abdn.ac.uk [137.50.26.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CE7D8800E2; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:40:52 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:40:50 +0000 Cc: PHP Internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: To: Michael Wallner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) Hi Mike, > On 29 Jan 2015, at 11:14, Michael Wallner wrote: >=20 > I=E2=80=99ve rewritten the RFC for pecl_http and hopefully addressed = most of the things mentioned previously. >=20 > I you still find anything lacking, please let me know, so I can expand = the RFC accordingly. The RFC is an improvement in that it covers more of *what* pecl/http is, = but it still doesn=E2=80=99t answer the most important question: why? It = still doesn=E2=80=99t answer any of the following key questions: * Why do we need pecl/http? * Why should pecl/http be merged into PHP core? * Why should pecl/http be enabled by default? * Why should we have our own HTTP API and not follow PSR-7? * What does it offer over PHP=E2=80=99s existing HTTP capabilities? * Why should we merge this rather than, say, filling in gaps in = PHP=E2=80=99s HTTP capabilities? So, I think the RFC is still rather lacking. The Features section = isn=E2=80=99t really any better than before, either. It only gives a = sentence or two to each module, which isn=E2=80=99t terribly = informative. Each module probably needs its own rationale, and a = comparison to PHP=E2=80=99s existing facilities, as well. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/