Re: [RFC] [VOTE] pecl_http

On 28/01/2015 20:19, Michael Wallner wrote:

On 28/01/15 20:07, Matteo Beccati wrote:

As Nikita mentions, PSR-7 is under way and currently gaining some traction. At the moment the PSR-7 interfaces are designed to be immutable, although I that's still open for debate. If the RFC passes, we'd be taking a fairly strong position and pushing the current pecl_http implementation as a de-facto standard. Sure, PHP-FIG would still be free to come up with their own standard, but it just doesn't seem much fair to me.

Why is everybody so obssessed by the word "standard"? What is "fair" supposed to mean in this regard? Doesn't FIG stand for Framework Interoperability Group? I've been there and wanted to start a discussion on the topic, but without success.

Seen that too. Welcoming "BE GONE FOUL INTERNALS DEVELOPER" joke aside, some objections have been made. You didn't like them, you disappeared suggesting PHP-FIG to "play alone in your shady little shed". Since PSR-7 is being discussed now *and* pecl_http can't implement an interface that still is being discussed, I would rather vote "no" now and maybe change my mind in future if PSR-7 becomes a thing and pecl_http follows. Or PSR-7 fails, for that matter.

Also, we're planning to move extensions from core to pecl, for example ext/mysql which I is still widely used by many applications, despite its known shortcomings. TBH, I don't see many reasons why a pecl extension should be moved to core.

So that basically means, there shouldn't be any extension added to the core any more, or only PECL ones?

pecl and (hopefully) pickle do a pretty good job at installing anything that's required. On the other hand distros offer packages for most of the core extensions anyway, even the ubiquitous zlib or json sometimes. So, yes I don't think core should have more extensions bundled, unless there's a very good reason. And I didn't see any yet. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/