Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
Regards,
Mike
Michael Wallner escribió:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
+1000, :) probably the most useful addition in years.
--
"A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no
mercy. "
Cristian Rodríguez R.
Platform/OpenSUSE - Core Services
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Research & Development
http://www.opensuse.org/
I have to agree here. Is the book already closed on core extensions in 5.3?
-ralph
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Michael Wallner escribió:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.+1000, :) probably the most useful addition in years.
Hi
2008/9/22 Michael Wallner mike@php.net:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.Regards,
Mike--
Big +1 from me aswell, and its already well documented which makes it
even greater :)
--
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Hi.
Michael Wallner wrote:
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
Not that I have a lot to say here, but +∞ from my side as well.
Karsten
Hi Michael,
Am Montag, den 22.09.2008, 20:17 +0200 schrieb Michael Wallner:
[...]
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
I would like to see pecl_http in just not in 5.3. I think we are too far
in the release process to do the required work to add it. And API review
would be required (I didn't looked at it closely but is), general code
review and so on. Of course I do not speak for our release managers, but
I would say "yes, but".
cu, Lars
Jabber: lars@strojny.net
Weblog: http://usrportage.de
Hi Michael,
Am Montag, den 22.09.2008, 20:17 +0200 schrieb Michael Wallner:
[...]I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the
main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed
it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.I would like to see pecl_http in just not in 5.3. I think we are too
far
in the release process to do the required work to add it. And API
review
would be required (I didn't looked at it closely but is), general code
review and so on. Of course I do not speak for our release managers,
but
I would say "yes, but".
I have not talked to Johannes about this, but unless there is a major
major major outcry from the internals folks to add it, its too late
for 5.3.
That being said, there is some overlap in features with existing
functionality. Maybe if we schedule this for PHP 6, then we might want
to mark a few things as deprecated in PHP 5.3.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org
That being said, there is some overlap in features with existing
functionality. Maybe if we schedule this for PHP 6, then we might want to
mark a few things as deprecated in PHP 5.3.
Doesn't sound like a good idea.
To be of "any use" pecl/http needs curl, I don't think "built-in"
functions which do not require external things should be deprecated...
-Hannes
Hello Hannes,
Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 3:04:16 PM, you wrote:
That being said, there is some overlap in features with existing
functionality. Maybe if we schedule this for PHP 6, then we might want to
mark a few things as deprecated in PHP 5.3.
Doesn't sound like a good idea.
To be of "any use" pecl/http needs curl, I don't think "built-in"
functions which do not require external things should be deprecated...
Exactly. Still we want http for its superior functionality.
And are we really that far with release? I had to interrupt the release
party but as far as I know, the number one addition still isn't finalized
yet. Even if no one cmplains about it anymore we still need some time for
adjustments.
Best regards,
Marcus
I have not talked to Johannes about this, but unless there is a major major
major outcry from the internals folks to add it, its too late for 5.3.
I count one "vote" against it...
-Hannes
While overall solid, I have 1 api critique that may or may not influence
inclusion..
The naming's seem slightly awkward for HttpResponse. Seemingly,
HttpResponse is the compliment to HttpRequest given their namings. But
looking at the api (the fact that its all static methods), it leads me
to believe that this class is more closely tied to the CURRENT PHP
response buffer. Is this the case?
While looking at the API for HttpRequest, it appears that after a
request is sent, it retrives an HTTPMessage object back (which would
make that class the compliment in the Request/Response paradigm).
If so, perhaps an alternate API and naming could be suggested?
HttpCurrentResponse makes alot of sense to me (as to not imply itself as
HttpRequest's compliment).. Also, would it make any sense (in this
case), to change the API to non-static methods, and object instantiation
to a getInstance() singleton pattern? This would allow for the class to
be extended and decorated and would be given more of an "object" feel-
which i feel like this the real value added here.
Please correct me if I am wrong,
Thanks,
Ralph
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
I have not talked to Johannes about this, but unless there is a major major
major outcry from the internals folks to add it, its too late for 5.3.I count one "vote" against it...
-Hannes
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution?
+1
-Hannes
Hello Michael,
I think it is pretty useful.
marcus
Monday, September 22, 2008, 8:17:58 PM, you wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
Regards,
Mike
Best regards,
Marcus
Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
+1
Greg
Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.+1
+1
no to insult, but i find the curl api a bit painful. the http extension is
a lot more api friendly for us oo folks out there.
-nathan
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.+1
+1
FWIW, ditto.
no to insult, but i find the curl api a bit painful. the http extension is
a lot more api friendly for us oo folks out there.
Troll.
:)
Best Regards,
Mike Robinson
Mike R wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
+1+1
FWIW, ditto.
no to insult, but i find the curl api a bit painful. the http extension is
a lot more api friendly for us oo folks out there.
So pecl/http is actually ext/curl with OO API?
Why not merge the two then..? Or rather, replace ext/curl with pecl/http
once latter has BC API for us non-oo folks out there..
--Jani
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Jani Taskinen jani.taskinen@sci.fiwrote:
Mike R wrote:
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main
PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.+1
+1
FWIW, ditto.
no to insult, but i find the curl api a bit painful. the http extension
is
a lot more api friendly for us oo folks out there.So pecl/http is actually ext/curl with OO API?
for the most part, yes (i know it requires libcurl to build), but it has a
set of functions in the global scope as well, like http_put() and
http_post().
Why not merge the two then..? Or rather, replace ext/curl with pecl/http
once latter has BC API for us non-oo folks out there..
im not sure the global function set in pecl/http interact w/ each other as
do those in ext/curl. the two sets of functions may be mutually exclusive,
but i suspect there could be some BC breakage in a merge of the two
extensions.
-nathan
Jani Taskinen wrote:
So pecl/http is actually ext/curl with OO API?
Not really. libcurl is not HTTP only, pecl/http utilizes libcurl for
it's HTTP request functionality. pecl/http also provides much improved
HTTP response and zlib functionality besides an "swizz-army-knife" for URLs.
Why not merge the two then..? Or rather, replace ext/curl with pecl/http
once latter has BC API for us non-oo folks out there..
You don't have to write OO code to use pecl/http, neither do you
have the possibility to query any protocol other than HTTP with
pecl/http.
Regards,
Mike
Mike,
I have a few questions about the API and target use cases. What is the
best medium to ask these questions and document them? This thread
certainly is not the best place im sure of.
Thanks,
Ralph
Michael Wallner wrote:
Jani Taskinen wrote:
So pecl/http is actually ext/curl with OO API?
Not really. libcurl is not HTTP only, pecl/http utilizes libcurl for
it's HTTP request functionality. pecl/http also provides much improved
HTTP response and zlib functionality besides an "swizz-army-knife" for URLs.Why not merge the two then..? Or rather, replace ext/curl with pecl/http
once latter has BC API for us non-oo folks out there..You don't have to write OO code to use pecl/http, neither do you
have the possibility to query any protocol other than HTTP with
pecl/http.Regards,
Mike
Ralph Schindler wrote:
Mike,
I have a few questions about the API and target use cases. What is the
best medium to ask these questions and document them? This thread
certainly is not the best place im sure of.
I'm moving this to php.pecl.dev then. That should be the right place.
Regards,
Mike
I wonder what the general opinion is on adding pecl/http to the main PHP
distribution? Many people have poked me in the past, so I guessed it's
time to ask me and you that question once for all.
I didn't took a deeper look at it yet, just some doc reading. One thing
I found was that it's using tons of ini settings. Having ini setting
means that an admin might break apps without really knowing.
I think it's fine to have settings for limitations on pconnects, but
stuff like http.request.methods.allowed or http.only_exceptions should
imo be set as object properties (or similar), not globally using ini
settings.
johannes
Johannes Schlüter escribió:
or http.only_exceptions should
imo be set as object properties (or similar), not globally using ini
settings.
Or just throw only exceptions and no ini setting at all.
--
"A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no
mercy. "
Cristian Rodríguez R.
Platform/OpenSUSE - Core Services
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Research & Development
http://www.opensuse.org/
Hi Johannes,
Am Montag, den 27.10.2008, 19:59 +0100 schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
[...]
I think it's fine to have settings for limitations on pconnects, but
stuff like http.request.methods.allowed or http.only_exceptions should
imo be set as object properties (or similar), not globally using ini
settings.
I totally agree, reasons like that and others like Class::singleton()
instead of getInstance() (which seems more common in the PHP world) is
the reason I would like to do a proper API review, before promoting it
to core.
cu, Lars
I've not seen plenty of "Class::singleton()" myself, getInstance is an
accepted standard in all languages, including the PHP code I wrote, and I've
had experience with.
Regards, Stan Vassilev
Hi Stan,
Am Dienstag, den 28.10.2008, 14:33 +0200 schrieb Stan Vassilev | FM:
[...]
I've not seen plenty of "Class::singleton()" myself, getInstance is an
accepted standard in all languages, including the PHP code I wrote,
and I've had experience with.
That's my point, yes. pecl_http uses ::singleton() instead of
getInstance().
cu, Lars
Jabber: lars@strojny.net
Weblog: http://usrportage.de
Lars Strojny wrote:
I've not seen plenty of "Class::singleton()" myself, getInstance is an
accepted standard in all languages, including the PHP code I wrote,
and I've had experience with.That's my point, yes. pecl_http uses ::singleton() instead of
getInstance().
Well, sure--that depends. PEAR for example defined ::singleton()
as the standard name and most of the code I've dealt with at that
time used ::singleton() either. I guess this is merely a matter
of taste, respectively what's PHP going to use in the future.
Regards,
Mike