Re: PEAR2_Http_Request / HTTP_Request2

David Coallier wrote:

Some people configure with sockets, some people don't. fsockopen() is always there, isn't it? But

What is wrong with having the choice without the loss of speed ? Nothing is wrong with choice. I was merely asking why one would want to choose :-)

Allowing choice isn't free in terms of complexity, development, QA, etc., though, so I don't believe in adding choice just for the sake of it. That's why I am asking.

Also preference, some people swear only by curl, some others by streams. I assume the purpose of making different adapters is to provide a uniform API to the different ways of making HTTP requests in PHP, so why would one care about what's inside? Or are certain adapters expected to have specific features that cannot be implemented in the other?

If different adapters are necessary to allow the package to work on as many platforms/systems as possible, I think it's a worthy goal. On the other hand, I think your example about people compiling a custom version of curl with special features on the surface sounds a bit esoteric :-) Josh wrote to me in private (because I answered his original message in private by mistake) that curl may have a better chance of getting SSL to work than a socket based solution. I don't know how big the problem is in practice, but it may very well be another good reason for allowing choice. Christian