Re: [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http
| From: | Andrea Faulds | Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:38:23 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-81336@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Stas,
> On 28 Jan 2015, at 20:30, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Personally, I’ve never liked that PHP requires cURL for doing HTTP
>> requests. It’s a language made for the web, it should have built-in
>
> I see no problem in depending on cURL. NIH'ing every part of the
> software universe in unfeasible, and if somebody does this one job and
> does it well - why not use it? We don't have enough resources here to
> implement every detail of the huge protocol like HTTP, and that's the
> whole point of opensource to reuse and combine projects.
I suppose cURL isn’t so bad… really, the API is the biggest issue with that. HTTP requests in
PHP feel like a second-class citizen and must be done through an awkward set of PHP bindings to a C
library. That’s awful for a language made for the web.
I’d be okay with cURL were it not for the API, I guess. Actually, if we’re to keep HTTP stream
wrappers and keep using cURL, then the HTTP stream wrapper should probably also use cURL, right?
>> HTTP, and it should share code between its server-side HTTP and
>> client-side HTTP stuff. I don’t think that the HTTP stream wrappers
>> are a “hack” - they’re what PHP should have had all along. I think we
>
> HTTP stream wrappers work for some cases, but not for all and for cases
> where you need deep involvement with details of HTTP - like headers,
> byteranges, content encodings, etc. - they might not be the best API to
> deal with it.
This is true. The main thing I like about HTTP stream wrappers is that they’re part of core PHP
rather than some external library. Also, they support headers, have done for ages.
Thanks.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/