> On 23 01 2015, at 02:40, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Now, that I'm mostly done with porting pecl/http [1] and dependencies >> (propro [2] and raphf [3]) to ZE3 I'd like to restart discussion on the >> topic, whether it is feasible to add pecl_http as a bundled extension to >> the core. >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http >> >> [1] https://github.com/php/pecl-http-pecl_http/tree/phpng >> [2] https://github.com/php/pecl-php-propro/tree/phpng >> [3] https://github.com/php/pecl-php-raphf/tree/phpng >> >> For a test run with master, clone into ext/ and `configure --with-http >> --enable-propro --enable-raphf` after buildconf. >> >> Let me know if it doesn't work out of the box for you. >> >> I'll have to update the corresponding links in the RFC to the phpng >> branches and refresh the code coverage reports in the next few days. >> >> Reminder! >> >> Do not look at php.net/http; API docs are here: >> http://devel-m6w6.rhcloud.com/mdref/http/ > > I am still all for it :) > > By the way, I did not yet look more deeply to raphf and propro but > that's something I like to discuss. If their feautures are useful for > other parts of the core, extensions, bundled or not, we should > consider moving them to the main APIs and not as two new independent > extensions. >
Well, I’m not the one to tell you that :) If I didn’t find it useful, I wouldn’t have built it. Don’t hesitate, if there are questions about what they conceptually are trying to accomplish. I think a short discussion about where to put the dependant code and noting the outcome in the RFC could be the way to go. I guess just a few people who think that pecl_http is about to be included would suffice. Best regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
