Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97626
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.169 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:43:29 -0600
References: <D25FDAC5-A72F-4391-8414-8966124173ED@gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_mFfPNpPZ0z48LdoKwNt4DLRpBpZbVUoCyz8Bi2PA82zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D275F6F-85D3-4E9D-AF89-03C91A23D5BD@gmail.com>
 <CAL=_i_kT6Dnty5pJFfoJy5aaffsvz_WfqdhTqJf76tatZdi9dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_kT6Dnty5pJFfoJy5aaffsvz_WfqdhTqJf76tatZdi9dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BD978BDF-2D11-47EB-A700-C9BE312A1699@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Discussion] ServerRequest and ServerResponse
 objects
From: pmjones88@gmail.com (Paul Jones)


> On Jan 7, 2017, at 15:41, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:
>=20
> That doesn't sound like a positive consensus that this is a good idea, =
it is rather the opposite.

Not to get into interpretations of comments, but while I agree that =
there were one or two actual negatives, they were predicated on a =
misunderstanding of the purpose of the RFC. As such I took them as =
neutral, rather than negative. The remainder were questions or comments, =
and not negative ones.

Either way, I think we can see from reactions here since then (and =
elsewhere) that there is some level of positive interest in the RFC as =
presented, as well as some healthy technical questioning. I'm happy to =
hear both.


--=20
Paul M. Jones
pmjones88@gmail.com
http://paul-m-jones.com

Modernizing Legacy Applications in PHP
https://leanpub.com/mlaphp

Solving the N+1 Problem in PHP
https://leanpub.com/sn1php