I'll forward this to internals, Chris. On 28/01/15 18:43, christopher jones wrote:> > > On 1/28/15 9:28 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: >> On 28/01/15 18:22, christopher jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/28/15 9:17 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: >>>> On 28/01/15 18:01, christopher jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/28/15 4:17 AM, Michael Wallner wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Discussion has been very low on this topic since it was proposed on >>>>>> August 19th, so I just opened the vote on the RFC whether to add >>>>>> pecl_http to the core. The vote will be open until about 12:00 UTC on >>>>>> Friday, February 6th. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pecl_http#vote >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The RFC is almost content free. What are the pros & cons? If I was >>>>> voting, I'd have to vote No based purely on lack of info. >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> I could have duplicated the manual but for what use? >>>> Everything else would sound like a cheesy commercial, wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> It's about adding well known, or at least well defined through docs, >>>> functionality, you have to decide yourself if you want it to be shipped >>>> with the core. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure it needs supportive prose like a fancy syntax change or a >>>> new operator. >>>> >>>> pecl_http had its first release exactly 10 years ago and is currently >>>> ranked within the top 10 PECL extensions with about 50k downloads per >>>> month for a while now. >>>> >>>> Didn't I say it'll sound cheesy? :) >>>> >>> >>> >>> I firmly believe the RFC should capture the info in some form. And I >>> would debate "well known". >>> >>> I put time & effort into updating the RFC template for a reason! >> >> Sure, but I'm actually lost?! >> What would you like to read in the RFC? What each component does? >> I'd really appreciate any suggestions. >> > > Yes. > And potential porting issues.
You mean between OSes? No issues known. There once was a report about Solaris, but the affected code has dropped out of the source since. Every other release Remi catches a tiny gotcha (thanks!). > And usage numbers Hard to say. The PECL stats say 50k downloads per month: http://pecl.php.net/package-stats.php?pid=429&rid=&cid=11 > And code base size (so we know what we're getting into) Big? >20k LOC > And a stability estimate (you seem to keep making changes) Thanks god, else it would be dead. Making no changes to software doesn't mean it's stable, does it? > And future plans. Improving on the 90% test code coverage. Improving performance and memory usage. Add or improve missing or roughly implemented features. > And alternative extensions or workarounds if this isn't added. Duh, seriously? -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
