Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

From: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:01:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Hi all,

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Crypto Compress <
[email protected]> 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
[email protected]


Thread (55 messages)

« previous php.internals (#81387) next »