Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi all, On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Crypto Compress < cryptocompress@googlemail.com> wrote: > possible points: > - PHP-FIG propose no implementations; pecl_http does > - PHP-FIG focus on frameworks; pecl_http in core is useable without > dependencies by every simple script > - PSR-7 is a moving target; pecl_http exists for ten years > - PSR-7 can be complementary to pecl_http not the other way around (c code > can't use php code?) > - native implementations should be faster > General pros - PHP is made for Web. API like pecl_http should be included by default. - Script implementation and module implementation can co-exists. Example is mail/imap. Now I understand why many people dislike this proposal probably. Native module/script implementations may exist both. New module may be added/replaced at any time if it's required/reasonable. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net