I don’t want to restart any previous threads, but I’d like to get/restart the conversation going with the pecl/http RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http.
Recent conversations regarding https://wiki.php.net/rfc/http-interface https://wiki.php.net/rfc/http-interface make this approach far more realistic and approachable. I think discussions regarding the two should be hashed, and one or the other come out on top. They have competing aspects, but pecl/http has a proven and well-known interface. It’s high-time, at the very least, that it be considered for core.
I don’t want to restart any previous threads, but I’d like to
get/restart the conversation going with the pecl/http RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http.Recent conversations regarding https://wiki.php.net/rfc/http-interface
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/http-interface make this approach far more
realistic and approachable. I think discussions regarding the two
should be hashed, and one or the other come out on top. They have
competing aspects, but pecl/http has a proven and well-known interface.
It’s high-time, at the very least, that it be considered for core.
Has anyone looked at ways of tweaking pecl/http to work nicely with PSR-7? For instance, it would be a shame if an adapter were needed to make http\Message implement Psr\Http\Message\MessageInterface when they are so close in intent.
On the other hand, I guess declaring the compatibility would require baking the interface itself into the core/extension, which might be unpopular.