On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Paul Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 7, 2017, at 15:41, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: > > > > That doesn't sound like a positive consensus that this is a good idea, > it is rather the opposite. > > Not to get into interpretations of comments, but while I agree that there > were one or two actual negatives, they were predicated on a > misunderstanding of the purpose of the RFC. As such I took them as neutral, > rather than negative. The remainder were questions or comments, and not > negative ones. > > Either way, I think we can see from reactions here since then (and > elsewhere) that there is some level of positive interest in the RFC as > presented, as well as some healthy technical questioning. I'm happy to hear > both. [Trying again, Sorry Paul who has likely received this three+ times nows] [Resent without URLs, grrr] Let me be absolutely clear: Any attempt to improve HTTP request/response handling in PHP that doesn't take into account WebSockets or HTTP/2 Server Push is a non-starter for me. PSR-7 was heavily influenced by Python's WSGI spec and they are also seeing it's inability to handle these types of interactions. As such there is a new recommendation being proposed called ASGI: Asynchronous Server Gateway Interface [1], that is intended to address this. I think it would be more beneficial for PHP the language to consider reaching out to the Python community and seeing if it makes sense to collaborate on this. A new ASGI SAPI would come with message objects/interfaces (see [1]) baked in. If we want PHP to have a meaningful presence for the future web, we need to move forward from our current request/response 1:1 HTTP-only model. So, as currently proposed, I'm -1. It doesn't move the language forward in any meaningful way. - Davey [1] google: ASGI python, it's the first result
