Re: Http_download isnt on github yet (?)

Actually, I think I just had an idea for a name that would convey the purpose a lot more unambiguously: HTTP_Response. Since it's the server that gives responses, this clearly conveys the package is a server helper. HTTP_Request(2) uses HTTP_Request(2)_Response for its responses, so there won't be a conflict. Thoughts? 2012/1/9 Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com>: > After examining the docs in some greather detail, I realize you're right... > > Previously, because the API looks basically the same as HTTP_Request > (or to be more precise, like pecl_http's Request, merged with its > Response object), I was left with the impression it's the same, plus a > convinience function for the whole thing. I guess the name is somewhat > misleading (I thought it lets PHP download things, whereas it's > instead about *providing* downloads), but then again, I have no better > idea for a name, so... ignore everything I said :D . > > 2012/1/9 till <till@php.net>: >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What's the point of creating HTTP_Download2 when there's already >>> HTTP_Request(2) and even PEAR2_HTTP_Request? Aren't they essentially >>> fulfilling the same purpose (with the PEAR2 variant being the >>> namespaced incarnation) of HTTP_Download? >> >> >> Well, I don't want to argue that really since I have no practical experience >> with HTTP_Download. But it seems like they serve different purposes. I am >> not sure if the HTTP_Request2 can be used to achieve the same. Briefly >> checking it seems like HTTP_Download is a helper on the server-side to offer >> downloads to any HTTP client, whereas HTTP_Request2 is a HTTP client >> library. >> >> Till >>