[RFC] True Async RFC 1.7

30 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello everyone!

RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async

Here is the seventh version of the RFC, revised and expanded.

Version 1.7 (December 2025)

Fiber integration: added Fiber::getCoroutine() method,
ownership model, deadlock resolution
Added Coroutine methods: getId(), getResult(), getException(),
getTrace()
Refined Goals section: improved clarity and technical accuracy of
core value propositions
Function naming aligned with PHP coding standards:
currentCoroutine() → current_coroutine(),
gracefulShutdown() → shutdown(),
getCoroutines() → get_coroutines()
Method renaming: Coroutine::onFinally() → Coroutine::finally() (brevity)
Interface renaming: FutureLike → Completable
Exception renaming: CancellationError → Cancellation (clearer semantics)
Moved Cancellation to the root namespace (\Cancellation) as
a fundamental PHP mechanism
Changed Cancellation inheritance from \Error to \Throwable,
following Python’s CancelledError pattern
Added backward compatibility notes for the new root namespace class
Renamed DeadlockException to DeadlockCancellation

My Comments

Since the vote took place, I have tried to bring together specialists
in asynchronous programming to discuss the RFC, and I was surprised by
the lack of serious disagreements. You can read the discussion on
GitHub, where key opinions from representatives of different libraries
and components are expressed.

These discussions became the basis for refining the RFC.
Compatibility research involving WordPress, Laravel, and AMPHP helped
clarify future prospects and potential challenges.

As part of the research, Xdebug was also adapted, without which
debugging WordPress code in coroutines would have been inconvenient. A
special version of Async-Worker for FrankenPHP was also developed.

Memory models were not included in the RFC because none of them
provide significant benefits, do not make the code noticeably better,
and all of them have drawbacks. Instead, future versions are expected
to introduce a separate API and philosophy for multithreaded
coroutines.

I returned to the original idea of defining the Cancellation exception
directly in the PHP core. This was always the right decision, and it
should not have been abandoned.

The most important change in this RFC is support for fibers as an
extended form of coroutines. It turned out to be a great idea.

I finally came up with a good term to replace FutureLike, which had
been really annoying me.

Experiments

To understand which code breaks, a special version of TrueAsync was
created that made GLOBALS unique per coroutine. This made it possible
to run WordPress as a stateful application with only a few changes.

Two versions of the code were implemented. One where WordPress was
fully initialized in each coroutine for every request, and another
where WordPress cloned only a subset of its data structures. Similar
experiments were also conducted on Laravel.

No more than 1–2 hours were spent on code changes for WordPress and
Laravel. In other words, there were almost no changes.

Automatic analysis of the Laravel codebase showed that the number of
components combining I/O operations with shared in-memory state is
extremely small compared to the amount of code that can work without
changes. Some WordPress functions with static variables continued to
work as before because they did not contain any I/O operations.

Overall, it became clear that the vast majority of the code remains
functional in a concurrent environment and works without changes. This
means that transparent async can actually save developers time and
money.

Key Conclusions

One-thread coroutines are a powerful pattern for web-oriented
programming languages, providing a balanced trade-off between system
complexity, code safety, and developer ergonomics.
Coroutines running in other threads do not contradict the
one-thread model. They require further development and can integrate
organically, complementing each other’s functionality.
Actors are likely to become the next key pattern for
multithreaded programming. Their implementation is clear, feasible,
efficient, and surprisingly safe.
Memory isolation and transfer mechanisms between PHP threads
will not conflict with the current RFC. Instead, they will complement
it and coexist alongside it.

I think having two tools for async, concurrent coroutines and
inter-thread interaction, can complement each other very well, and
most importantly, they can be built gradually, step by step.

This is, of course, a brief summary of the events of the past month,
so if I missed anything, please feel free to ask.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

15 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hi everyone.

I have completed the research on PHP core changes for multithreaded
programming. The article briefly presents the main benefits of PHP
multithreading: thread pools and actors.
https://github.com/true-async/multithreaded-php/blob/main/mm-en.md

This research makes it possible to look into a potential timeline of
PHP’s evolution and imagine how the current RFC could interact with
multithreading abstractions.
The article examines how threads and actors can interact with coroutines.

As for my personal opinion.

I believe that actors are the safest and most sustainable pattern for
the PHP language. They are much better than manual thread management
and better than interacting with a thread pool. PHP should evolve
toward higher-level abstractions that are not tied to OS-specific
details. I am convinced that the presence of low-level APIs in PHP
that mirror C functions is a historical design mistake that should be
phased out.

Actors allow writing sequential code without thinking about
multithreading or thread pools. This is a solid tool with proven
effectiveness and well-known trade-offs, focused on business logic.
That is why actors are a perfect fit for PHP. A single-threaded
coroutine model fits actors very well, creating the necessary illusion
of sequential execution.

The current amount of research, experimentation, and knowledge should
be sufficient to make a well-balanced decision.

Best regards, Ed

12 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello all.

I think the New Year holidays are already over for most people.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to set an approximate voting date if
nothing changes. Today is January 12. I suggest aiming for February 1.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by Talysson Lima — view source — reply

unread

Em seg., 12 de jan. de 2026 às 06:54, Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
escreveu:

Hello all.

I think the New Year holidays are already over for most people.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to set an approximate voting date if
nothing changes. Today is January 12. I suggest aiming for February 1.

Best regards, Ed

It's astonishing how such an important issue, one that could change the
direction of PHP and is highly requested by the community – native
asynchronous support in PHP – doesn't receive the necessary attention.

It's almost disrespectful to the tremendous effort Ed put into it. Everyone
knows that passing the RFC isn't necessary; it's a democratic process. But
apparently, there's a closed group of people who mutually favor each other
and exclude others. Perhaps if this had been proposed by someone like
Nikita, it would have received more attention.

I see many people with this same opinion going in this direction. Maybe we
should improve our mindset?

I see many features arriving and being discussed that don't have 1% of the
impact that true async would bring to PHP. You just need to take the time
to look at community groups. Isn't the community taken into consideration?

2 days ago by Deleu — view source — reply

unread

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 12:08 PM Talysson Lima talyssonlima5@gmail.com
wrote:

Em seg., 12 de jan. de 2026 às 06:54, Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
escreveu:

Hello all.

I think the New Year holidays are already over for most people.
Therefore, it would be reasonable to set an approximate voting date if
nothing changes. Today is January 12. I suggest aiming for February 1.

Best regards, Ed

It's astonishing how such an important issue, one that could change the
direction of PHP and is highly requested by the community – native
asynchronous support in PHP – doesn't receive the necessary attention.

It's almost disrespectful to the tremendous effort Ed put into it.
Everyone knows that passing the RFC isn't necessary; it's a democratic
process. But apparently, there's a closed group of people who mutually
favor each other and exclude others. Perhaps if this had been proposed by
someone like Nikita, it would have received more attention.

I see many people with this same opinion going in this direction. Maybe we
should improve our mindset?

I see many features arriving and being discussed that don't have 1% of the
impact that true async would bring to PHP. You just need to take the time
to look at community groups. Isn't the community taken into consideration?

I think you might be attributing "lack of attention" to something that is
far more likely to be caused by "complexity of the changes". Remember that
pretty much everyone here (with a very small exception of some internal
engineers) are doing voluntary work. Between our professional lives,
personal lives, family matters and hobbies, we chime in for a few minutes a
day to participate, discuss and improve the language we all enjoy using
(although this is an assumption on my part, it's hard to justify
contributing on your free time to something you don't actually like).

The Async RFC, in any of its versions, has already taken more time from me
than all the last 5 years of reading and/or participating in PHP RFCs
combined. And even though I have invested a lot more time into it, I can
barely say I understand 5% of it. I don't have a vote, so my input here is
merely that of an observer, but if at least half the voters are in a
similar situation as I am, its very easy to conclude that its not lack of
attention or lack of understanding the community wishes.

It has been voiced on Internals multiple times by multiple people that this
RFC has the potential to be the biggest PHP impact in a very long time. I
see no evidence whatsoever of anybody diminishing the value of the subject.
We also have a collective knowledge that the PHP community has interest in
async execution as stated by the existence of Swoole, ReactPHP, AMPHP,
Symfony Runtime, Laravel Octane, Fibers and this RFC.

Now, after reading this if you agree with me that 1) we know its big and
valuable and 2) we know the community wants it, how do we move forward? I
don't have 40 hours/week to dedicate into reading the RFC, understanding
everything, running local tests, validating the design choices, and
understanding potential BC Breaks. I have tried multiple times to take 30
minutes blocks here and there to go through the information available and
try to understand how it would impact my existing projects, how I would use
this in production and what could be done to make the experience for PHP
developers better and frankly it hasn't gotten me anywhere. The RFC is too
big, the concepts is too foreign and the impact is too unknown.

If you look at the history of Nikita's proposals or even more recently the
history of any RFC proposed and easily accepted, you will find an RFC text
that you can skim through in roughly 20 minutes and you will understand:
what is it about, whether it affects your usage of PHP or not (not every
RFC affects every PHP developer), how localized/contained the change is and
why it will be a positive change to the language. Meanwhile, for the Async
RFC, I'm willing to bet $100 that if you pick 3 random participants of PHP
Internals and magically give them 1 hour of time to digest, they will all
come out with different understanding of the proposal and still not
understanding enough to be able to cast a vote whether this can be
integrated into PHP as-is or not.

TL;DR: it's not about whether we think something is more or less important
to the PHP community. It's about what we can read, understand, judge,
suggest changes and decide if it belongs in PHP or not in our 30-minute per
week time slot that we give PHP out of pure personal enjoyment of the
language.

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] — view source — reply

unread

It's astonishing how such an important issue, one that could change the
direction of PHP and is highly requested by the community – native
asynchronous support in PHP – doesn't receive the necessary attention.

It's almost disrespectful to the tremendous effort Ed put into it. Everyone
knows that passing the RFC isn't necessary; it's a democratic process. But
apparently, there's a closed group of people who mutually favor each other
and exclude others. Perhaps if this had been proposed by someone like
Nikita, it would have received more attention.

It's astonishing, and disrespectful, how many people who have never participated in the mailing list feel entitled to jump in and make accusations about those who do.

There is no secret cabal blocking discussion of this RFC, and no personality cult discrediting the effort put into it. Previous rounds of discussion produced huge numbers of replies - leading to the same conspiracy theories about why we weren't all just agreeing and getting on with it!

The truth is, this is an extremely complex project, and the PHP project lacks any process suitable for tackling it.

What is the right level of comment for a document with an estimated reading time of over an hour? Do we start with the principles of moving the language in this direction? Debate the philosophy of different async models? Jump straight into the details of every function name?

The idea of a "working group" was discussed, but no process was established, no "charter", no milestones. Edmond has been doing an amazing amount of work, and I will repeat that I have huge respect for that effort. But if you drop an encyclopedia on someone's desk and say "discuss", is it really surprising that people don't know what to say?

If there's a problem with the culture of the project, it's that there is too little central control; nobody has the authority or responsibility to make big organisational decisions. We have no "benevolent dictator", no corporate sponsor, no appointed Steering Committee.

I don't know what to do to get this project moving forward, but accusing people of deliberately blocking it does not help anyone.

Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

The idea of a "working group" was discussed, but no process was established, no "charter", no milestones. Edmond has been doing an amazing amount of work,
and I will repeat that I have huge respect for that effort. But if you drop an encyclopedia on someone's desk and say "discuss", is it really surprising that people don't know what to say?

As for the working group, it was created.
AMPHP and Swoole officially responded to the proposal.
Most of the discussions took place publicly.

We can read them here:
https://github.com/true-async/php-true-async-rfc/discussions

I thought there would be more discussions, but the thing is that we
don’t have any serious disagreements about the architecture.
There are some doubts that the RFC won’t be accepted in its entirety,
but that’s not a disagreement, rather secondary issues.
This situation is largely expected, because this RFC doesn’t propose
something new, but rather suggests bringing into the PHP core what has
long been working in the form of "extensions".
That’s why I’m not particularly surprised.

The main obstacle, and the main doubts, are not about what needs to be
done, but about whether it can be agreed upon.

It would be good to discuss the global implications for PHP if this
RFC is accepted. The global implications, or in other words a broader
roadmap of changes that become possible and logical if the RFC is
accepted.
I tried to look at such implications in my article about multithreading.

In an ideal world, I would like to be confident that everyone who will
vote on this RFC clearly understands the foundation of what PHP is
becoming:

a language oriented toward single-threaded concurrent execution,
with actors for multi-processor interaction.

That’s how I see the end goal. A high-level language, with a high
degree of abstraction over OS mechanisms. Without low-level elements.
Without access to fine-grained tuning. As safe as possible and as
simple as possible. A language with a built-in web server, socket
server, and other types of servers. With asynchronous extensions
enabled by default. The database connection pool should be available
out of the box and look like the usual, familiar PDO classes, without
significant changes.

Single-threaded coroutines are a proven compromise between high
complexity and ease of development.
Actors are a proven, maximally safe approach to writing parallel code.
None of these approaches is universal. On the contrary, they are all
oriented toward the web.

By voting for this RFC, you are voting specifically for a combination
of these two approaches, which has long existed in Node.js (except for
actors).
It would be good if this were absolutely clear to all participants in
the discussion.

2 days ago by Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] — view source — reply

unread

The idea of a "working group" was discussed, but no process was established, no "charter", no milestones. Edmond has been doing an amazing amount of work,
and I will repeat that I have huge respect for that effort. But if you drop an encyclopedia on someone's desk and say "discuss", is it really surprising that people don't know what to say?

As for the working group, it was created.

Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Working Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to the mailing list, etc.

If the WG didn't have the backing of this list, it doesn't solve the problem of how this list can understand and approve the proposal.

In an ideal world, I would like to be confident that everyone who will
vote on this RFC clearly understands the foundation of what PHP is
becoming:

a language oriented toward single-threaded concurrent execution,

with actors for multi-processor interaction.

That’s how I see the end goal.

Defining that end goal, in my mind, would be the first job of a Working Group. Then presenting it, and making sure the wider community agrees with that goal.

Right now, a "No" vote on the RFC could mean anything from "I disagree with the vision completely" to "I don't like the name of the 5th function on page 18".

And so everyone ends up frustrated, because we never worked out where to start, or where we're trying to get to.

Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Working Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to the mailing list, etc.

Yes, we don’t have a working group like that. And I’m afraid I don’t
know how it could come into existence.
I don’t have the authority to create "such" a group, and I’m not aware
of who does.
Today, we have what is possible within the existing framework: a free
association of free people.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by Jakub Zelenka — view source — reply

unread

Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a
Working Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report
back to the mailing list, etc.

Yes, we don’t have a working group like that. And I’m afraid I don’t
know how it could come into existence.
I don’t have the authority to create "such" a group, and I’m not aware
of who does.

Technically it could be done through the policy RFC like anything
governance related. The issue is that this would be a significant change to
our decision making and it might be potentially difficult to find an
agreement. Also it requires extra time from people involved which might not
be easy as well..

Kind regards,

Jakub

2 days ago by Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] — view source — reply

unread

Unless I missed something, there was never a discussion of what a Working Group should look like, what its aims were, how it would report back to the mailing list, etc.

Yes, we don’t have a working group like that. And I’m afraid I don’t
know how it could come into existence.
I don’t have the authority to create "such" a group, and I’m not aware
of who does.

Indeed, nobody does, and that is a problem. It's not an insurmountable problem though: we just have to bootstrap our way towards one.

A lot of management processes recognise that sometimes you have to step back and not just talk about how to build things, but talk about how to talk about building things. Ridiculous as it seems, sometimes you do need a meeting called "Project Planning Planning".

So in this case, we need to start from what we do have: this list, and the RFC process. We can have a discussion on the list, leading to a policy RFC, about what "Working Groups" could be used for, how one would be set up, what powers and responsibilities they would have relative to existing processes, etc. Once we've agreed that policy, there will be someone with the authority to create a WG for True Async.

(Or maybe during the discussion we decide "Working Group" is the wrong name and concept, but we agree some new process for Project Planning, or Roadmapping, or whatever. And then that process is available for True Async.)

That may seem a bit tedious and bureaucratic, but I can't see any other way of tackling a change of this magnitude and importance. 25 years ago, a couple of Israeli students could come and say "we've got some bold ideas of turning this web page toolkit into a proper programming language", and just get on with it; but now, every decision we make affects millions of users, and becomes immensely difficult to undo.

Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello.

Indeed, nobody does, and that is a problem. It's not an insurmountable problem though: we just have to bootstrap our way towards one.
Even if a project is governed democratically, a decision-making
hierarchy must exist.

I have nothing against development processes. I don’t consider them
bureaucracy. I consider it bureaucracy when there is an attempt to
imitate development processes.
Bureaucracy is the creation of an illusion of work, which should be
avoided. A good decision-making flow, on the other hand, is a
completely different matter.

Theoretically, I could of course create an RFC to change the PHP
development processes, including the voting principles.
It’s "possible", but it would most likely be extremely inefficient.

I currently have two options.

I can run a vote with several questions to find out what people
actually want.
Help with implementing changes to the decision-making processes, if
there is such a desire.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by Peter Kokot — view source — reply

unread

Da.

--
Peter Kokot

Hello.

Indeed, nobody does, and that is a problem. It's not an insurmountable
problem though: we just have to bootstrap our way towards one.
Even if a project is governed democratically, a decision-making
hierarchy must exist.

I have nothing against development processes. I don’t consider them
bureaucracy. I consider it bureaucracy when there is an attempt to
imitate development processes.
Bureaucracy is the creation of an illusion of work, which should be
avoided. A good decision-making flow, on the other hand, is a
completely different matter.

Theoretically, I could of course create an RFC to change the PHP
development processes, including the voting principles.
It’s "possible", but it would most likely be extremely inefficient.

I currently have two options.

I can run a vote with several questions to find out what people
actually want.

Help with implementing changes to the decision-making processes, if
there is such a desire.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by Peter Kokot — view source — reply

unread

Da.

Apologies, my watch sent the email automatically (misclick) :D.

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

2 days ago by Deleu — view source — reply

unread

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

Ed

I doubt the problem is about trust. You can trust that a company will not
go bankrupt, you still need to understand how to operate and buy stocks. I
think most readers are more likely to agree that you've put a tremendous
amount of work forward and it's not that hard to trust you've done a great
job so far. But if we don't know how things work, we can't help you make
even better decisions nor can we make use of what you've built.

I also don't think it's fair to expect from PHP's RFC process a position
of: "trust me, this is the best, lets just merge it". Even if you were the
best and smartest software engineer in the world, PHP is used by an
immeasurable amount of people from all backgrounds, in many contexts and
many approaches. Its not humanly possible for a single individual to know
every possible way PHP is used and the RFC process is here for people from
many backgrounds to provide their own perspective of things and voice how
they think such a change will affect them or their project - be it a
positive or a negative impact.

Right now, I think the "fairest" assumption is that we don't have many such
voices because nobody can read, understand, interpret and predict how this
RFC would play out in their projects and their work. It's far too big of a
change with too many concepts, mainly foreign to many people working with
PHP and there isn't a clear path of contributing to the discussion.

How do we solve that?

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

If that were the case. But it isn’t.

For example, the Swoole project has existed for more than 7 years. This
means that anyone here can check how coroutines actually affect their code.
There is already extensive experience with Laravel and other applications.
All of this has existed for a long time.

If people cannot read the RFC and understand that these are
JavaScript-style coroutines, then why do they have votes? 🙂 That’s a
strange idea.

Yes, there are issues with understanding. However, a year has passed since
the publication. In one year, it should have been possible to clarify any
questions, if there were any.

In other words, if PHP had never had such coroutines, that could be
understood. But the situation is exactly the opposite.

As for trust, the problem is that people don’t want to waste their time.
They don’t want to play for a team with no chance of success.

What can be done? A lot of things can be done. Last time there were several
proposals. But all of these proposals go beyond the scope of the RFC. They
require organizational changes.

I can once again propose having two votes and an experimental mode.
The first vote would be on the core principles of the language’s
development for the next 5–10 years.
A vote on this RFC.
Or another option. There is more than one. For example, you could vote in a
first approximation, and then a year later in a second round.

So...

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 22:15 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

Ed

I doubt the problem is about trust. You can trust that a company will not
go bankrupt, you still need to understand how to operate and buy stocks. I
think most readers are more likely to agree that you've put a tremendous
amount of work forward and it's not that hard to trust you've done a great
job so far. But if we don't know how things work, we can't help you make
even better decisions nor can we make use of what you've built.

I also don't think it's fair to expect from PHP's RFC process a position
of: "trust me, this is the best, lets just merge it". Even if you were the
best and smartest software engineer in the world, PHP is used by an
immeasurable amount of people from all backgrounds, in many contexts and
many approaches. Its not humanly possible for a single individual to know
every possible way PHP is used and the RFC process is here for people from
many backgrounds to provide their own perspective of things and voice how
they think such a change will affect them or their project - be it a
positive or a negative impact.

Right now, I think the "fairest" assumption is that we don't have many
such voices because nobody can read, understand, interpret and predict how
this RFC would play out in their projects and their work. It's far too big
of a change with too many concepts, mainly foreign to many people working
with PHP and there isn't a clear path of contributing to the discussion.

How do we solve that?

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Deleu — view source — reply

unread

If that were the case. But it isn’t.

Let's agree to disagree.

For example, the Swoole project has existed for more than 7 years. This
means that anyone here can check how coroutines actually affect their code.

And in those 7 years, it hasn't been adopted by 100% of PHP projects. In
fact, I'd take a wild guess that its adoption is very likely below 20% of
PHP projects out there. Just because it exists doesn't mean every PHP
Software Engineer would benefit from it or that it's undeniably useful for
any project or business. I first heard of Swoole in 2020. Ever since, I've
had the desire to try it out, but never had a business case for it. If your
RFC requires people to dive deep into knowing Swoole and understanding how
it works and how it affects everyone's code, I would consider that to be
one of the top reasons why the RFC hasn't gotten more traction.

There is already extensive experience with Laravel and other applications.
All of this has existed for a long time.

Just because it has existed doesn't mean it is universally used.

If people cannot read the RFC and understand that these are
JavaScript-style coroutines, then why do they have votes? 🙂 That’s a
strange idea.

I see this statement as you going out of your way to offend the very people
that have the power to vote on your RFC. They have a vote because they have
contributed to the ecosystem of PHP enough to have a vote. An ecosystem
that has existed without Async PHP for 3 decades. An ecosystem that
requires thorough development, documentation, release, testing, bug fixing,
security fixing. They have volunteered their time in proposing changes,
getting those changes ironed out, implemented, adopted. They have improved
the language. Just because they don't have your level of knowledge in
asynchronous programming does not make their contribution any less
meaningful or any less important.

I can understand and sympathise that it must be very frustrating for you to
put so much thought and care into this proposal and have no clear path as
to how to make it land on PHP Core. But that is not an excuse to offend
contributors of the project, especially given how narrow the subject matter
is. There's definitely an appetite to have Async PHP and you're not going
to get anybody on your side by implying that they are the problem in
understanding your RFC. This is not a "one or another person" problem.
There are plenty of extremely smart people participating in the development
of PHP for years. How can the RFC be easy to digest so that they can
participate more?

Yes, there are issues with understanding. However, a year has passed since
the publication. In one year, it should have been possible to clarify any
questions, if there were any.

The RFC is complex enough that giving it chunks of 30 minutes spread across
many weeks is not enough to put forward every question that it warrants. 1
year or 10 years is not going to solve that.

In other words, if PHP had never had such coroutines, that could be

understood. But the situation is exactly the opposite.

As for trust, the problem is that people don’t want to waste their time.
They don’t want to play for a team with no chance of success.

I see no evidence of that. There is no one team vs another here. The change
either lands or it doesn't. Being such a promising change to the PHP
Ecosystem, it would be in any volunteer's interest to have been able to
participate and shape the biggest change in the PHP Language in decades.
But its not about "wasting time because its a loss cause". Its about not
having volunteering time to grasp such a hard RFC.

What can be done? A lot of things can be done. Last time there were several

proposals. But all of these proposals go beyond the scope of the RFC. They
require organizational changes.

I can once again propose having two votes and an experimental mode.
The first vote would be on the core principles of the language’s
development for the next 5–10 years.
A vote on this RFC.
Or another option. There is more than one. For example, you could vote in
a first approximation, and then a year later in a second round.

So...

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 22:15 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 4:29 PM Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
wrote:

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

Ed

I doubt the problem is about trust. You can trust that a company will not
go bankrupt, you still need to understand how to operate and buy stocks. I
think most readers are more likely to agree that you've put a tremendous
amount of work forward and it's not that hard to trust you've done a great
job so far. But if we don't know how things work, we can't help you make
even better decisions nor can we make use of what you've built.

I also don't think it's fair to expect from PHP's RFC process a position
of: "trust me, this is the best, lets just merge it". Even if you were the
best and smartest software engineer in the world, PHP is used by an
immeasurable amount of people from all backgrounds, in many contexts and
many approaches. Its not humanly possible for a single individual to know
every possible way PHP is used and the RFC process is here for people from
many backgrounds to provide their own perspective of things and voice how
they think such a change will affect them or their project - be it a
positive or a negative impact.

Right now, I think the "fairest" assumption is that we don't have many
such voices because nobody can read, understand, interpret and predict how
this RFC would play out in their projects and their work. It's far too big
of a change with too many concepts, mainly foreign to many people working
with PHP and there isn't a clear path of contributing to the discussion.

How do we solve that?

--
Marco Deleu

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

I never said that any projects were adapted for Swoole. Moreover, whether
they were adapted or not is a slightly different discussion. I was only
saying that the impact is well known. For example, it is well known how
coroutines affect Laravel. It is also well known that Laravel does not
support coroutines.

Participation in the vote presupposes a minimal level of programming
literacy. This is not an insult, but an attempt to remind of that. It is
clear that it is impossible to be an expert in all areas, but it is also
impossible to make a decision without understanding.

An RFC has two levels of complexity: the first and the second. The first
level is simple enough to be understandable by any programmer. Transparent
asynchrony and coroutines are not something that cannot be understood.

We have come to live in a society where everyone is very eager to take
offense, instead of thinking about important things. I like to think about
something.

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 23:24 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

If that were the case. But it isn’t.

Let's agree to disagree.

For example, the Swoole project has existed for more than 7 years. This
means that anyone here can check how coroutines actually affect their code.

And in those 7 years, it hasn't been adopted by 100% of PHP projects. In
fact, I'd take a wild guess that its adoption is very likely below 20% of
PHP projects out there. Just because it exists doesn't mean every PHP
Software Engineer would benefit from it or that it's undeniably useful for
any project or business. I first heard of Swoole in 2020. Ever since, I've
had the desire to try it out, but never had a business case for it. If your
RFC requires people to dive deep into knowing Swoole and understanding how
it works and how it affects everyone's code, I would consider that to be
one of the top reasons why the RFC hasn't gotten more traction.

There is already extensive experience with Laravel and other applications.
All of this has existed for a long time.

Just because it has existed doesn't mean it is universally used.

If people cannot read the RFC and understand that these are
JavaScript-style coroutines, then why do they have votes? 🙂 That’s a
strange idea.

I see this statement as you going out of your way to offend the very
people that have the power to vote on your RFC. They have a vote because
they have contributed to the ecosystem of PHP enough to have a vote. An
ecosystem that has existed without Async PHP for 3 decades. An ecosystem
that requires thorough development, documentation, release, testing, bug
fixing, security fixing. They have volunteered their time in proposing
changes, getting those changes ironed out, implemented, adopted. They have
improved the language. Just because they don't have your level of knowledge
in asynchronous programming does not make their contribution any less
meaningful or any less important.

I can understand and sympathise that it must be very frustrating for you
to put so much thought and care into this proposal and have no clear path
as to how to make it land on PHP Core. But that is not an excuse to offend
contributors of the project, especially given how narrow the subject matter
is. There's definitely an appetite to have Async PHP and you're not going
to get anybody on your side by implying that they are the problem in
understanding your RFC. This is not a "one or another person" problem.
There are plenty of extremely smart people participating in the development
of PHP for years. How can the RFC be easy to digest so that they can
participate more?

Yes, there are issues with understanding. However, a year has passed
since the publication. In one year, it should have been possible to clarify
any questions, if there were any.

The RFC is complex enough that giving it chunks of 30 minutes spread
across many weeks is not enough to put forward every question that it
warrants. 1 year or 10 years is not going to solve that.

In other words, if PHP had never had such coroutines, that could be

understood. But the situation is exactly the opposite.

As for trust, the problem is that people don’t want to waste their time.
They don’t want to play for a team with no chance of success.

I see no evidence of that. There is no one team vs another here. The
change either lands or it doesn't. Being such a promising change to the PHP
Ecosystem, it would be in any volunteer's interest to have been able to
participate and shape the biggest change in the PHP Language in decades.
But its not about "wasting time because its a loss cause". Its about not
having volunteering time to grasp such a hard RFC.

What can be done? A lot of things can be done. Last time there were

several proposals. But all of these proposals go beyond the scope of the
RFC. They require organizational changes.

I can once again propose having two votes and an experimental mode.
The first vote would be on the core principles of the language’s
development for the next 5–10 years.
A vote on this RFC.
Or another option. There is more than one. For example, you could vote in
a first approximation, and then a year later in a second round.

So...

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 22:15 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 4:29 PM Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
wrote:

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

Ed

I doubt the problem is about trust. You can trust that a company will
not go bankrupt, you still need to understand how to operate and buy
stocks. I think most readers are more likely to agree that you've put a
tremendous amount of work forward and it's not that hard to trust you've
done a great job so far. But if we don't know how things work, we can't
help you make even better decisions nor can we make use of what you've
built.

I also don't think it's fair to expect from PHP's RFC process a position
of: "trust me, this is the best, lets just merge it". Even if you were the
best and smartest software engineer in the world, PHP is used by an
immeasurable amount of people from all backgrounds, in many contexts and
many approaches. Its not humanly possible for a single individual to know
every possible way PHP is used and the RFC process is here for people from
many backgrounds to provide their own perspective of things and voice how
they think such a change will affect them or their project - be it a
positive or a negative impact.

Right now, I think the "fairest" assumption is that we don't have many
such voices because nobody can read, understand, interpret and predict how
this RFC would play out in their projects and their work. It's far too big
of a change with too many concepts, mainly foreign to many people working
with PHP and there isn't a clear path of contributing to the discussion.

How do we solve that?

--
Marco Deleu

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

P.s

Oh right. I’d like to say a bit about how I feel, because there were
assumptions here that I’m frustrated.
Okay. I am not frustrated. I usually look at the current situation and
understand how it works from the inside.
Why? The thing is, rockets are exploding around me and so on. And then
suddenly the question arises: someone in the world thinks differently. So
what?
Honestly? It doesn’t matter much.
The world is inherently imperfect. Programming is not based on proofs.
People constantly make various irrational decisions. It has always been
that way and it always will be. And that is completely normal.
You don’t get angry at rain, do you? Or snow? I also don’t feel anger
toward natural things.
Everyone will make their own choice. I’ve already made mine. In that sense,
I’m comfortable. Those who will be voting have a much harder task.

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 23:41 Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com:

I never said that any projects were adapted for Swoole. Moreover, whether
they were adapted or not is a slightly different discussion. I was only
saying that the impact is well known. For example, it is well known how
coroutines affect Laravel. It is also well known that Laravel does not
support coroutines.

Participation in the vote presupposes a minimal level of programming
literacy. This is not an insult, but an attempt to remind of that. It is
clear that it is impossible to be an expert in all areas, but it is also
impossible to make a decision without understanding.

An RFC has two levels of complexity: the first and the second. The first
level is simple enough to be understandable by any programmer. Transparent
asynchrony and coroutines are not something that cannot be understood.

We have come to live in a society where everyone is very eager to take
offense, instead of thinking about important things. I like to think about
something.

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 23:24 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 5:42 PM Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
wrote:

If that were the case. But it isn’t.

Let's agree to disagree.

For example, the Swoole project has existed for more than 7 years. This
means that anyone here can check how coroutines actually affect their code.

And in those 7 years, it hasn't been adopted by 100% of PHP projects. In
fact, I'd take a wild guess that its adoption is very likely below 20% of
PHP projects out there. Just because it exists doesn't mean every PHP
Software Engineer would benefit from it or that it's undeniably useful for
any project or business. I first heard of Swoole in 2020. Ever since, I've
had the desire to try it out, but never had a business case for it. If your
RFC requires people to dive deep into knowing Swoole and understanding how
it works and how it affects everyone's code, I would consider that to be
one of the top reasons why the RFC hasn't gotten more traction.

There is already extensive experience with Laravel and other
applications.
All of this has existed for a long time.

Just because it has existed doesn't mean it is universally used.

If people cannot read the RFC and understand that these are
JavaScript-style coroutines, then why do they have votes? 🙂 That’s a
strange idea.

I see this statement as you going out of your way to offend the very
people that have the power to vote on your RFC. They have a vote because
they have contributed to the ecosystem of PHP enough to have a vote. An
ecosystem that has existed without Async PHP for 3 decades. An ecosystem
that requires thorough development, documentation, release, testing, bug
fixing, security fixing. They have volunteered their time in proposing
changes, getting those changes ironed out, implemented, adopted. They have
improved the language. Just because they don't have your level of knowledge
in asynchronous programming does not make their contribution any less
meaningful or any less important.

I can understand and sympathise that it must be very frustrating for you
to put so much thought and care into this proposal and have no clear path
as to how to make it land on PHP Core. But that is not an excuse to offend
contributors of the project, especially given how narrow the subject matter
is. There's definitely an appetite to have Async PHP and you're not going
to get anybody on your side by implying that they are the problem in
understanding your RFC. This is not a "one or another person" problem.
There are plenty of extremely smart people participating in the development
of PHP for years. How can the RFC be easy to digest so that they can
participate more?

Yes, there are issues with understanding. However, a year has passed
since the publication. In one year, it should have been possible to clarify
any questions, if there were any.

The RFC is complex enough that giving it chunks of 30 minutes spread
across many weeks is not enough to put forward every question that it
warrants. 1 year or 10 years is not going to solve that.

In other words, if PHP had never had such coroutines, that could be

understood. But the situation is exactly the opposite.

As for trust, the problem is that people don’t want to waste their time.
They don’t want to play for a team with no chance of success.

I see no evidence of that. There is no one team vs another here. The
change either lands or it doesn't. Being such a promising change to the PHP
Ecosystem, it would be in any volunteer's interest to have been able to
participate and shape the biggest change in the PHP Language in decades.
But its not about "wasting time because its a loss cause". Its about not
having volunteering time to grasp such a hard RFC.

What can be done? A lot of things can be done. Last time there were

several proposals. But all of these proposals go beyond the scope of the
RFC. They require organizational changes.

I can once again propose having two votes and an experimental mode.
The first vote would be on the core principles of the language’s
development for the next 5–10 years.
A vote on this RFC.
Or another option. There is more than one. For example, you could vote
in a first approximation, and then a year later in a second round.

So...

ср, 21 янв. 2026 г., 22:15 Deleu deleugyn@gmail.com:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 4:29 PM Edmond Dantes edmond.ht@gmail.com
wrote:

Regarding the group, I want to once again express an important point.
The main problem, the primary blocking issue, is that nobody believes
this RFC has any real chance.

It’s like in the banking system: if you convince people that stocks
will fall, then even if it’s not true, the stocks will fall.

At the same time, I agree with this assessment.
We are facing a paradox.

To make changes to the language, you need to believe that these
changes can be accepted. Previously, there were doubts about whether
such changes could even be implemented. That problem has been solved.
What remains is the lack of trust in acceptance.
How can this be resolved? I think there are ways, and they are known.
They are just all outside the scope of the current RFC.

Ed

I doubt the problem is about trust. You can trust that a company will
not go bankrupt, you still need to understand how to operate and buy
stocks. I think most readers are more likely to agree that you've put a
tremendous amount of work forward and it's not that hard to trust you've
done a great job so far. But if we don't know how things work, we can't
help you make even better decisions nor can we make use of what you've
built.

I also don't think it's fair to expect from PHP's RFC process a
position of: "trust me, this is the best, lets just merge it". Even if you
were the best and smartest software engineer in the world, PHP is used by
an immeasurable amount of people from all backgrounds, in many contexts and
many approaches. Its not humanly possible for a single individual to know
every possible way PHP is used and the RFC process is here for people from
many backgrounds to provide their own perspective of things and voice how
they think such a change will affect them or their project - be it a
positive or a negative impact.

Right now, I think the "fairest" assumption is that we don't have many
such voices because nobody can read, understand, interpret and predict how
this RFC would play out in their projects and their work. It's far too big
of a change with too many concepts, mainly foreign to many people working
with PHP and there isn't a clear path of contributing to the discussion.

How do we solve that?

--
Marco Deleu

--
Marco Deleu

2 days ago by Jakub Zelenka — view source — reply

unread

I can once again propose having two votes and an experimental mode.

I don't like this experimental model or introducing API stability levels as
it is confusing for users. It requires extra checking for users to do for
each API (no one usually does it and with AI it will be even more
problematic because it might not tell that the generated code uses
experimental API). This would just become pain for user and I don't think
it would be good for PHP.

The first vote would be on the core principles of the language’s
development for the next 5–10 years.

That can be already done but it will never guarantee that the second vote
will succeed. People even might change their mind between votes so I'm not
sure it's really useful. It might be easier to just ask people after the
vote why they voted no. I think most of them will tell you if you politely
ask them privately.

Kind regards,

Jakub

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

I don't like this experimental model or introducing API stability levels as it is confusing for users. It requires extra checking for users to do for each API (no one usually does it and with AI it will be even more problematic because it might not tell that the generated code uses experimental API). This would just become pain for user and I don't think it would be good for PHP.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, and we could talk about
the pros and cons of a “nightly” build.
I could explain how early product delivery improves code quality.

That can be already done but it will never guarantee that the second vote will succeed.
It's OK!
But at least I would know that the PHP community truly wants to make
the language asynchronous. I still don’t understand the answer to that
question. It seems to me: no.

We could probably include a vote in this RFC on three core principles:

concurrency
transparent asynchronicity
cancellation

to see how many people support them. If more than one third vote
against it, then we can safely stop trying to change anything.

1 day ago by Derick Rethans — view source — reply

unread

I don't like this experimental model or introducing API stability
levels as it is confusing for users. It requires extra checking for
users to do for each API (no one usually does it and with AI it will
be even more problematic because it might not tell that the
generated code uses experimental API). This would just become pain
for user and I don't think it would be good for PHP.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, and we could talk about
the pros and cons of a “nightly” build. I could explain how early
product delivery improves code quality.

That can be already done but it will never guarantee that the second
vote will succeed.

It's OK!

But at least I would know that the PHP community truly wants to make
the language asynchronous. I still don’t understand the answer to that
question. It seems to me: no.

I think there is a difference between:

Make the PHP language wholly asynchronous
Add some (more) asynchronous functionality to PHP

From this series of RFCs, I think you believe that 1 is needed, or
perhaps necessary. On the other hand, I believe that most PHP
developers are more interested in the second option — run a few slow
things in parallel.

There have now been more than half a dozen variants of the RFC, and
beyond the amount of work that you put in it, it also asks a lot of
everybody else to read and understand.

As somebody earlier in these threads explained, the subject matter is
also not a simple one, and it requires deep understanding to be able to
understand all the trade-offs and consequences.

Implementing this project requires is a large undertaking, akin to the
Unicode project (PHP 6). That project ultimiately failed because it
ended up being too big, with too many trade-offs. Your "True Async"
project additionally suffers from only having one main implementor.

The Unicode issue got partly resolved by splitting it up into much
smaller blocks, in the form of the intl extension, and now in the last
few releases with better support for handling graphemes. We have seen
the same for PFAs and other langauge additions — this makes it much
easier to reason about that, and to get these features adopted.

I have said this before, but for a large project like "True Async", you
really ought to get a group of people together in a Working Group, to
decide what PHP users would want this functionality for in a language
focussed mainly on web applications.

But you approach this from the other side, by wanting to make PHP itself
an asynchronous language. I think doing such a large project, mainly by
yourself as the sole designed and developer, is doomed to fail. It isn't
something I would be confident about voting for, at least.

cheers,
Derick

--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io

Author of Xdebug. Like it? Consider supporting me: https://xdebug.org/support

mastodon: @derickr@phpc.social @xdebug@phpc.social

1 day ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello, Derick

I think there is a big misunderstanding of the situation here.

But you approach this from the other side, by wanting to make PHP itself
an asynchronous language

I think I come across as a reasonable person. I genuinely don’t
understand how such a conclusion could have been drawn, or based on
what.
So please allow me to briefly dive into the history of programming to
explain that I am of sound mind and in good mental health.

In the late 2000s, Ryan Dahl noticed a simple thing:
servers spend most of their time waiting: for the network, the disk, the client.
And yet we create threads just to sit idle.

He proposed a radical idea:
one thread, no blocking waits.
The code does not sleep, it postpones a thought and moves on.

That is how Node.js was born. An event loop and asynchronous code that
later took the form of async/await, essentially coroutines.

But computation does not know how to wait. Heavy work began to
suffocate the main thread.

The solution was simple and honest: let one thread wait and
orchestrate, and let heavy tasks move to workers.
Thus a clear separation emerged: waiting in coroutines, computing in workers.

Many years have passed, and in practice it has been proven that he
chose the right approach one that turned the once clumsy JavaScript
into a language capable of fast request handling.

Alongside the success of JavaScript, similar projects appeared in PHP.
There were many of them. One of the first was probably Workerman,
though I can hardly remember now.

Do you really think all these people were trying to make PHP
asynchronous for reasons other than practical needs?

Concurrent I/O for PHP is probably one of the most important features
that should have been implemented many years ago. Because PHP is a
server-side programming language, and a server-side language must be
able to handle I/O efficiently. This is far more important than
parallelism.
The concurrent I/O does not negate parallelism and can, and should, be
used together with it.

As for the list of tasks that concurrent I/O solves, it is quite large:
https://github.com/true-async/php-true-async-rfc/discussions/9

I have been programming in PHP for more than 20 years in commercial
development, and for about 15 of those years I have been missing good
async support and convenient parallelism in PHP. I tried Swoole and
AMPHP to meet those needs, but in the end I chose the only correct
path, one I am absolutely confident in. You cannot build asynchronous
applications in a language that does not support them. That is the
conclusion of all my attempts.

That is why I am here today, doing what I am doing.

As for parallelism in PHP, you can take a look at my research work on
the topic, where future capabilities of the language and possible
modifications are analyzed:
https://medium.com/@edmond.ht/multithreading-in-php-looking-to-the-future-4f42a48e47fe
Just to clarify, this text is not a product of imagination, but the
result of experiments with the PHP core, partially implemented.

Best regards, Ed

1 day ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

https://tonybaloney.github.io/posts/why-isnt-python-async-more-popular.html

I would also recommend paying attention to an excellent article about
asynchrony in Python and its problems.

And next quotation:

FastAPI, the web framework that’s async from-the-ground-up grew in
popularity again from 29% to 38% share of the web frameworks for Python,
taking the #1 spot. It has over 100-million downloads a month. Considering
the big use-case for async is HTTP and network IO, having the #1 web
framework be an async one is a sign of asyncio’s success.

And this is despite the fact that there are various problems, such as code
splitting due to colored functions.

That’s a serious argument, isn’t it?

чт, 22 янв. 2026 г., 17:15 Derick Rethans derick@php.net:

I don't like this experimental model or introducing API stability
levels as it is confusing for users. It requires extra checking for
users to do for each API (no one usually does it and with AI it will
be even more problematic because it might not tell that the
generated code uses experimental API). This would just become pain
for user and I don't think it would be good for PHP.

I think this is a good topic for discussion, and we could talk about
the pros and cons of a “nightly” build. I could explain how early
product delivery improves code quality.

That can be already done but it will never guarantee that the second
vote will succeed.

It's OK!

But at least I would know that the PHP community truly wants to make
the language asynchronous. I still don’t understand the answer to that
question. It seems to me: no.

I think there is a difference between:

Make the PHP language wholly asynchronous

Add some (more) asynchronous functionality to PHP

From this series of RFCs, I think you believe that 1 is needed, or
perhaps necessary. On the other hand, I believe that most PHP
developers are more interested in the second option — run a few slow
things in parallel.

There have now been more than half a dozen variants of the RFC, and
beyond the amount of work that you put in it, it also asks a lot of
everybody else to read and understand.

As somebody earlier in these threads explained, the subject matter is
also not a simple one, and it requires deep understanding to be able to
understand all the trade-offs and consequences.

Implementing this project requires is a large undertaking, akin to the
Unicode project (PHP 6). That project ultimiately failed because it
ended up being too big, with too many trade-offs. Your "True Async"
project additionally suffers from only having one main implementor.

The Unicode issue got partly resolved by splitting it up into much
smaller blocks, in the form of the intl extension, and now in the last
few releases with better support for handling graphemes. We have seen
the same for PFAs and other langauge additions — this makes it much
easier to reason about that, and to get these features adopted.

I have said this before, but for a large project like "True Async", you
really ought to get a group of people together in a Working Group, to
decide what PHP users would want this functionality for in a language
focussed mainly on web applications.

But you approach this from the other side, by wanting to make PHP itself
an asynchronous language. I think doing such a large project, mainly by
yourself as the sole designed and developer, is doomed to fail. It isn't
something I would be confident about voting for, at least.

cheers,
Derick

--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io

Author of Xdebug. Like it? Consider supporting me:
https://xdebug.org/support

mastodon: @derickr@phpc.social @xdebug@phpc.social

1 day ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

I think doing such a large project, mainly by
yourself as the sole designed and developer, is doomed to fail. It isn't
something I would be confident about voting for, at least.

One of the reasons this project doesn’t have more programmers is that
nobody believes it will be accepted.
In other words, your fear of voting for the project is the reason
there are no developers.

The opportunity to expand participation in this project does exist.
However, I am facing a dilemma: I cannot compensate these people in
any way, neither financially nor in terms of moral or reputational
reward.
It is quite possible that having a single developer brings more
advantages than disadvantages. Still, I would be happy to collaborate
with other specialists, and I genuinely enjoy team development. In
that sense, I’m probably more of a manager than a developer. I enjoy
design and coordination.

I think the problem here is not that this project is being led by a
single person, but that a situation has been created in which people
are afraid to develop an important feature.
I don’t know how this situation came about or how the language ended
up losing this advantage, but I’m sure it’s a good reason to reflect.

1 day ago by Rob Landers — view source — reply

unread

I think doing such a large project, mainly by
yourself as the sole designed and developer, is doomed to fail. It isn't
something I would be confident about voting for, at least.

One of the reasons this project doesn’t have more programmers is that
nobody believes it will be accepted.
In other words, your fear of voting for the project is the reason
there are no developers.

I don’t think that’s universally true, or at least it hasn’t been my experience.

I’ve worked on plenty of projects that ultimately failed, and the risk of failure itself isn’t a blocker for me. I’ve read through the code, I understand the design, and I’ve worked on schedulers and low-level systems before. From a purely technical standpoint, this is work I’d normally be very interested in contributing to.

When I personally stepped back, it wasn’t due to doubts about acceptance, but due to the way feedback and collaboration have played out so far. In both on-list and off-list discussions, I didn’t see concrete feedback being meaningfully incorporated, even at a small or incremental level. That made it hard for me to gauge whether collaboration would actually influence the direction of the project.

I want to be clear about something important, though: this isn’t a lack of interest in asynchronous capabilities in PHP, nor a lack of willingness to help. I think many people would like to see PHP move forward here. But for a project of this size and impact, contributors need to feel that concerns are being heard, trade-offs are being explored together, and iteration is genuinely collaborative.

If the process moves in that direction, breaking things down, explicitly engaging with criticism, and evolving the design based on shared input, I think you may find that more people are willing to invest time and energy into it.

— Rob

1 day ago by Deleu — view source — reply

unread

I think doing such a large project, mainly by
yourself as the sole designed and developer, is doomed to fail. It isn't
something I would be confident about voting for, at least.

One of the reasons this project doesn’t have more programmers is that
nobody believes it will be accepted.
In other words, your fear of voting for the project is the reason
there are no developers.

I don’t think that’s universally true, or at least it hasn’t been my
experience.

I’ve worked on plenty of projects that ultimately failed, and the risk of
failure itself isn’t a blocker for me. I’ve read through the code, I
understand the design, and I’ve worked on schedulers and low-level systems
before. From a purely technical standpoint, this is work I’d normally be
very interested in contributing to.

When I personally stepped back, it wasn’t due to doubts about acceptance,
but due to the way feedback and collaboration have played out so far. In
both on-list and off-list discussions, I didn’t see concrete feedback being
meaningfully incorporated, even at a small or incremental level. That made
it hard for me to gauge whether collaboration would actually influence the
direction of the project.

I want to be clear about something important, though: this isn’t a lack of
interest in asynchronous capabilities in PHP, nor a lack of willingness to
help. I think many people would like to see PHP move forward here. But for
a project of this size and impact, contributors need to feel that concerns
are being heard, trade-offs are being explored together, and iteration is
genuinely collaborative.

If the process moves in that direction, breaking things down, explicitly
engaging with criticism, and evolving the design based on shared input, I
think you may find that more people are willing to invest time and energy
into it.

— Rob

I share the exact same sentiment here. The likelihood that the project
might fail is actually the reason why I keep coming back and trying to
contribute to the conversation and I would actually be happy to help steer
the project towards an approval. But every reply I write is dismissed as if
I’m just wrong in what I’m saying, which is either true and someone else
who isn’t wrong will be a better contributor or is false and there is no
way for me to help the project get approved under the dismissive attitude.

1 day ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello.

I don’t think that’s universally true, or at least it hasn’t been my experience.
As far as I know, there is no universal truth. PHP plus asynchronicity
plus a crisis of trust is a very specific situation.
And it has existed longer than this RFC. It’s a fairly large topic for
discussion, and probably uncomfortable.

When I personally stepped back
Lately, I’ve been hearing the phrase “take a step back” quite a few times.
But believe me, not a single person who’s said this to me has been
able to clearly explain what they actually mean.
What does “a step back” even mean?

I want to be clear about something important, though: this isn’t a lack of interest in asynchronous capabilities in PHP, nor a lack of willingness to help.

Python got asynchronicity in 2015.
Python is a general-purpose language, and asynchronous I/O is not a
critical feature for it.
PHP still hasn’t gained asynchronicity. It’s 2026.
For PHP, asynchronicity matters more than it does for Python.

On top of that, there have been some attempts by different people to
add asynchronicity to PHP, all of which either failed or were ignored.
So there is interest in asynchronicity, but it seems to be buried
very, very deep :)

contributors need to feel that concerns are being heard, trade-offs are being explored together, and iteration is genuinely collaborative.

What concerns?
What collaboration?
What is this actually about?

Everyone who wanted to collaborate on this RFC has already done so.
I’m running this project 100% openly, there isn’t even a private chat.
Only a few ideas were discussed privately over email, and I always
write about the outcomes of those discussions publicly.

If the process moves in that direction, breaking things down, explicitly engaging with criticism, and evolving the design based on shared input, I think you may find that more people are willing to invest time and energy into it.

Sorry, but I don’t understand anything from this sentence at all:

Which direction? What’s wrong with the current one?
Into what parts should things be broken down, and why?
What does “explicitly engaging with criticism” mean? And what kind
of work was being done before. Implicit? Hidden?
What does “evolving the design based on shared input” mean? Who is
stopping you from contributing to an open repository? Who is this
person who is forbidding it? Tell us who they are and we’ll punish
them :)

And you seem to be missing the most important point:

this project is not something I personally need.
It’s not my project that people aren’t joining.
The TrueAsync project was created first and foremost for PHP itself.
PHP is the one that needs it.

I am already an experienced and fully capable developer without it. I
don’t need to prove anything to anyone.
The problems with the process of accepting large changes to the
language cannot be solved by me. They are outside the scope of my
responsibility.
I don’t need to solve it. I don’t need to create working groups. I
don’t need to write private emails and ask everyone to vote. I’ve
already done the work within the scope of the responsibility.

The remaining percentage of success no longer depends on my actions.

21 hours ago by Larry Garfield — view source — reply

unread

Hello.

I don’t think that’s universally true, or at least it hasn’t been my experience.
As far as I know, there is no universal truth. PHP plus asynchronicity
plus a crisis of trust is a very specific situation.
And it has existed longer than this RFC. It’s a fairly large topic for
discussion, and probably uncomfortable.

When I personally stepped back
Lately, I’ve been hearing the phrase “take a step back” quite a few times.
But believe me, not a single person who’s said this to me has been
able to clearly explain what they actually mean.
What does “a step back” even mean?

I want to be clear about something important, though: this isn’t a lack of interest in asynchronous capabilities in PHP, nor a lack of willingness to help.

Python got asynchronicity in 2015.

Python is a general-purpose language, and asynchronous I/O is not a
critical feature for it.

PHP still hasn’t gained asynchronicity. It’s 2026.

For PHP, asynchronicity matters more than it does for Python.

On top of that, there have been some attempts by different people to
add asynchronicity to PHP, all of which either failed or were ignored.
So there is interest in asynchronicity, but it seems to be buried
very, very deep :)

contributors need to feel that concerns are being heard, trade-offs are being explored together, and iteration is genuinely collaborative.

What concerns?

What collaboration?
What is this actually about?

Everyone who wanted to collaborate on this RFC has already done so.
I’m running this project 100% openly, there isn’t even a private chat.
Only a few ideas were discussed privately over email, and I always
write about the outcomes of those discussions publicly.

If the process moves in that direction, breaking things down, explicitly engaging with criticism, and evolving the design based on shared input, I think you may find that more people are willing to invest time and energy into it.

Sorry, but I don’t understand anything from this sentence at all:

Which direction? What’s wrong with the current one?

Into what parts should things be broken down, and why?

What does “explicitly engaging with criticism” mean? And what kind
of work was being done before. Implicit? Hidden?

What does “evolving the design based on shared input” mean? Who is
stopping you from contributing to an open repository? Who is this
person who is forbidding it? Tell us who they are and we’ll punish
them :)

And you seem to be missing the most important point:

this project is not something I personally need.

It’s not my project that people aren’t joining.

The TrueAsync project was created first and foremost for PHP itself.

PHP is the one that needs it.

I am already an experienced and fully capable developer without it. I
don’t need to prove anything to anyone.
The problems with the process of accepting large changes to the
language cannot be solved by me. They are outside the scope of my
responsibility.
I don’t need to solve it. I don’t need to create working groups. I
don’t need to write private emails and ask everyone to vote. I’ve
already done the work within the scope of the responsibility.

The remaining percentage of success no longer depends on my actions.

I've not had a chance to look at the latest draft yet, but I do want to speak to the process debate.

There's multiple overlapping problems/challenges here, and we need to separate them.

This proposal is huge, and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified, so that means people need to spend an hour or two each time there's a change fully digesting it. That's a very large ask, especially when there are exactly 0 people in the world who have "review RFCs" as their job description; not even the Foundation team has that, technically. I've worked on some very large RFCs (hooks), so I know the challenge this poses, but Async is even worse because it's more conceptually complex and far reaching.

This is exacerbated by, I suspect, a language barrier issue, which comes off as Ed being dismissive of feedback. But regardless of the cause, there are definitely people who feel their concerns have been dismissed (rightly or wrongly). I know I spent many hours reading and responding to earlier drafts a year ago, and I know some of that feedback still hasn't been incorporated.

Because it's so complex, we get a strong reverse-bikeshed problem. This is a nuclear-reactor level feature, not a bikeshed level feature, so fairly few people even feel qualified to critique the specifics, whether they have the time to or not.
PHP is a structureless organization. That means we suffer from the Tyranny of Structurelessness[1]. (Please everyone, do read that article. It takes less time than reading the Async RFC. :-) ) It's not that PHP has no leadership, it's that the leadership is an informal amorphous blob with no clear definition, and everyone has a different idea of who it is.

8 years ago, there was a de facto consensus that Nikita was The Lead(tm), and so if Nikita liked something it would probably pass because people trusted Nikita, and if Nikita didn't like something it would probably not pass because people trusted Nikita. Nikita was a known quantity, and people trusted his judgement, even if they didn't always understand it. So Nikita's RFCs almost always passed. (Whether you consider that good or bad is a separate matter.)

Today, there's about a half dozen people that have maybe a quarter of that clout. Of course, there's no consensus on exactly who those people are. It probably overlaps heavily with the Foundation staff, but not entirely. But that means there's no one who can "bless" this RFC to give everyone else confidence that the adults in the room, the PHP elites if you will, think it's OK.

That's what's really missing from this RFC: Quite simply, Ed is an unknown quantity. This is his first RFC, and it's a doozy. If the exact same RFC were proposed by, for example, a team of Ilija, Arnaud, Tim, and Derick, it would likely get a much warmer reception and attention. Not because those people are "better developers" than Ed, but because they have a track record, cloud, and "street cred" that Ed simply does not.

Naturally, your list of who has that kind of "cloud" will be different from mine; that is the problem of a structureless organization.

If Ed had been partnering with one of those "elites" all along, or brought one in part way through to vet and approve things, the RFC itself would probably be stronger but also more palatable.

That is what the various requests for a working group were about. Not "go elsewhere and talk to a bunch of people who never post on the Internals list to get their buy-in." That may be technically useful (and it seems like it was), but it's not politically or socially useful. What is lacking is "the people who are visible in Internals that I trust to sweat the details are on the job, and they're on board, so I feel safe being on board."

To be clear: This is not in any way shape or form Ed's fault. This is 1000% a failure of PHP the project, and a direct consequence of the project's steadfast refusal to introduce any sort of meaningful formal structure. This is why some of us have been trying on and off for years to fix this problem, but so far unsuccessfully.

What is really needed here, frankly, is for there to be more names on the RFC, and more familiar names. People who have the "street cred" to be trusted, or that we know how to engage with. People who are able to form consensus. That's what a working group means in this case: Having clear, dedicated, influential input into the design from people, both generalists and specialists, that others will trust to "get it right.."

Who those people should be, well, we're a structureless organization so I'm pretty sure everyone has a different list of names.

[1] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

--Larry Garfield

19 hours ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello

This proposal is huge, and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified,

This proposal used to be huge, but it no longer is. The current
version contains a fairly simple API with a minimal set of functions.
The conceptual core of the RFC can be described in just two or three
sentences.
It’s also worth taking into account that the RFC does not propose
anything new to the programming world. The principles are well known,
and existing analogues already exist. This is very important from a
comprehension standpoint.

and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified, so that means people need to spend an hour or two each time there's a change fully digesting it.

At least since the summer revision, the RFC has not changed
significantly. Most importantly, its core principles have remained
exactly the same for a long time. Version 1.7 is a purely incremental
change, which is clearly reflected in the history.

But regardless of the cause, there are definitely people who feel their concerns have been dismissed (rightly or wrongly).

Unfortunately, I don’t keep a log of concerns, but I generally provide
feedback on all issues. However, my responses are sometimes ignored.
Perhaps the language barrier is to blame? There are several
specialists who have an excellent command of English, but I remember
that last time their arguments were not really taken into account
either. So I’m not sure that the issue is only the language barrier.
This is more what I would call a “crisis of trust.” There are
different groups of developers between whom there is no good
communication.

there was a de facto consensus that Nikita was The Lead(tm), and so if Nikita liked something it would probably pass because people trusted Nikita,

Exactly. Changes were introduced into the language not because
consensus was reached, but because there was an authority who could
afford to push those changes through. So does it turn out that over
all this time, not a single complex feature has been accepted into the
language through a purely democratic vote?

What is really needed here, frankly, is for there to be more names on the RFC, and more familiar names. People who have the "street cred" to be trusted, or that we know how to engage with

I could, for example, hand this project over to Daniil Gentili, if he
wouldn’t mind.
He is extremely competent in this area, and moreover, he likely has an
excellent command of English (at least that’s my impression).
Or perhaps to someone else. That’s not really where the problem lies.
If that’s what will help move things forward, why not?

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

How the TrueAsync RFC evolved over time:

The first version proposed a fairly low-level API for controlling the
Scheduler, philosophically very close to AMPHP. It quickly became
clear that this approach had many drawbacks, including issues with
consistent PHP behavior.

The code was completely rewritten. Core changes became more
significant. In the second version, the PHP execution flow was changed
so that any code could be asynchronous.
The second RFC version introduced structured concurrency, close to
modern equivalents.
At the same time, the garbage collector code was rewritten several
times. One version went through code review, after which a simplified
variant appeared. Today, Async GC exists in a lightweight form.
The implementation code was modified and optimized according to
approaches used in Swoole.
The next RFC version received fixes and improvements to the
description. The RFC was split into several parts and significantly
reduced in size.
Around this point, the first vote and major discussions took place.
Their result was the creation of a working group. Another important
outcome was the integration of Fibers as coroutine generators, which
removed the problems of previous RFCs.
Various experiments were conducted, extended memory models were
tested, and Globals isolation was explored. WordPress and Laravel were
run as stateful applications under FrankenPHP + TrueAsync.
A small MVP was written for a multithreaded PHP memory manager capable
of correctly working with PHP objects across different threads. The
possibilities of sharing and transferring memory between PHP threads
were investigated.

Compared to document 1.6, document 1.7 contains one new section:
Fiber. Everything else remains without significant changes.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by tim@bastelstu.be — view source — reply

unread

Am 2025-12-25 08:57, schrieb Edmond Dantes:

Function naming aligned with PHP coding standards:
currentCoroutine() → current_coroutine(),
gracefulShutdown() → shutdown(),
getCoroutines() → get_coroutines()

Method renaming: Coroutine::onFinally() → Coroutine::finally()
(brevity)

Interface renaming: FutureLike → Completable

Exception renaming: CancellationError → Cancellation (clearer
semantics)

Having a new discussion thread for each version of the RFC (and the
amount of changes) make it hard for me to keep up with the RFC.

I've just taken a quick look at the stubs though and am noticing that
the “base exception” is incorrectly named, as I had previously mentioned
in my email in the voting thread:
https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/129308

It should be class AsyncException extends \Exception {} and class AsyncCancellation extends \Cancellation { } as per:
https://github.com/php/policies/blob/main/coding-standards-and-naming.rst#throwables

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello

I've just taken a quick look at the stubs though and am noticing that
the “base exception” is incorrectly named, as I had previously mentioned
in my email in the voting thread:

The base exception should be \Async\AsyncException.
Yeah, so the Async prefix should be present. OK, got it.

Thank you.

2 days ago by Jakub Zelenka — view source — reply

unread

Hi,

Hello everyone!

RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async

Here is the seventh version of the RFC, revised and expanded.

Version 1.7 (December 2025)

Fiber integration: added Fiber::getCoroutine() method,
ownership model, deadlock resolution

Added Coroutine methods: getId(), getResult(), getException(),
getTrace()

Refined Goals section: improved clarity and technical accuracy of
core value propositions

Function naming aligned with PHP coding standards:
currentCoroutine() → current_coroutine(),
gracefulShutdown() → shutdown(),
getCoroutines() → get_coroutines()

Method renaming: Coroutine::onFinally() → Coroutine::finally()
(brevity)

Interface renaming: FutureLike → Completable

Exception renaming: CancellationError → Cancellation (clearer
semantics)

Moved Cancellation to the root namespace (\Cancellation) as
a fundamental PHP mechanism

Changed Cancellation inheritance from \Error to \Throwable,
following Python’s CancelledError pattern

Added backward compatibility notes for the new root namespace class

Renamed DeadlockException to DeadlockCancellation

I think it would be more reasonable to target 9.0. We were discussing it
and it might potentially happen after 8.6 or in the worst case in the
following release (after 8.7) if we have a big TODO list of things (another
thing that we want there is conversion of streams from resources to
objects). We could potentially manage it as some sort of release branch
(that would need to be agreed) but I think it would be more reasonable for
feature like this as it would give us time to properly stabilise it.

Kind regards,

Jakub

2 days ago by Edmond Dantes — view source — reply

unread

Hello.

I think it would be more reasonable to target 9.0.

I would prefer flexible targets. 8.6 if it works out.
And if not, everything else.
In this respect, the RFC is very flexible: it specifies what the
functions should be, but does not require them to support
asynchronicity right away.

Best regards, Ed

2 days ago by Jakub Zelenka — view source — reply

unread

Hi,

I mentioned some things privately but will repeat them here as I think it's
important.

Hello.

I think it would be more reasonable to target 9.0.

I would prefer flexible targets. 8.6 if it works out.
And if not, everything else.
In this respect, the RFC is very flexible: it specifies what the
functions should be, but does not require them to support
asynchronicity right away.

I think PHP 9 is flexible target because we won't likely release it until
it's ready. PHP 8.6 is not flexible and likely this won't make it there
anyway. I think it just too big and the BC break (global changes during
suspension) is not acceptable for minor release either. On the other side
PHP 9 can accommodate for big changes. In fact I think it would be good for
marketing to have a big feature for a big release.

Kind regards,

Jakub