Re: [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

Hi Levi, > On 28 Jan 2015, at 17:58, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > > Oh, one more item: has anyone had time to review the pieces and how they > all interact, as well as reviewing the quality of each component? I should > hardly think in the time given this has been done. I'm not saying this > extension is bad; I am saying that I don't think there's been time for > anyone to properly evaluate whether it is or not. Related to that: I should have asked about the size. By the looks of things pecl/http is a pretty big extension that covers an awful lot of functionality. The RFC’s lack of rationale for adding the extension is bad enough, but the size of the extension makes it worse. It’s a lot of classes (28 in total), so I think the RFC really needs a strong case to add all these different modules. Not only does the RFC need an overall rationale, but each module probably needs its own rationale: how does it compare to PHP’s existing functions for that feature, etc.? Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/