No, this thread is not going anywhere because web services as defined by the non-standards compliant microsoft are still definining what they are doing with web services, (it's only in beta 2) and everyone is insensitive to each other.
Manuel, i have been reading this thread and all i can really see here is that you are trying to bully developers to make something that perhaps they don't feel is appropriate _right now_. I don't think web services support would be appropriate right now for the reasons mentioned above, but that is my opinion. I am happy to see that there are some positive things coming out to make php5 even better than php4. I don't think discussion about a set of services that aren't even grounded yet (they are still experimental!) is a good thing. Lets discuss things that might benefit the growth of php5, here and now, rather than something that might be suitable for version 5.2. my 2 cents. James Cox -- James Cox :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please CC me when replying to my messages > -----Original Message----- > From: Manuel Lemos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Built-in SOAP based Web Services > support(wasRe:PHP 5) > > > Hello, > > This thread is not going anywhere because you continue to be insensitive > to everything I tell you. > > > Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > At 05:28 02/01/2002, Manuel Lemos wrote: > > > > (b) If we do it, it'll go on leaking as it does today > > > > > >False, if you do it you will give one less reason for users to > drop PHP. > > > > That sentence MEANS that though. Maybe you weren't sure of > what you were > > saying, but saying "We have to do X in order to prevent even more users > > from leaking" means that even if we do X, users will go on > leaking as they > > do now, and if we don't do X, they'll leak more. > > I am sure that I always meant if you provide built-in Web services > consuption support the users will not have that excuse to drop PHP. If > they drop PHP it will be for other reasons that you may need to find out > but that is unrelated to this suggestion. > > > > > Again, I wasn't expecting you to answer me point by point on > this and tell > > me if you think it's right or not. As I said - "if it's the truth - we > > don't want to hear it" - especially when people here don't > think it's the > > truth. Think positive. > > Of course, you may not want to believe it now. What I have been trying > to tell you for a long time is that history has shown that all languages > had their best days and worst days. You may disagree just because you > only want to be optimist but if PHP does not adapt to the user needs, > PHP best days are over. > > It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the rush for Web > services already started and it is going to increase a lot very soon > because it provides a new way to for service/content provides to make > money from the Internet. If PHP is not at least as a good solution as > other languages that are already capable of providing built-in > consuption, you leave users interested on that no other choice as > dropping PHP for those languages. > > I am not even guessing. It already happened in some other forum where > some user was really trying hard for defending PHP in his company for > providing and consuming Web services. I pointed him to several SOAP > based classes that he could use but he told me that it was not > convincing in his company because people there are already aware that > even Visual Fox Pro (I thought nobody was using that anymore) can do it > now with built-in commands making it a trivial task compared with the > complexity of using PHP for the same purpose. It doesn't require a smart > person to realize that cases like this will be increasing and people > will use something else like when PHP did not have built-in session > support. > > > > > >You are still not getting it, I don't have a problem when people do not > > >accept my ideais. My problem only happens when arises when > people invent > > >forced excuses for not accepting my ideas or at least to not > put them in > > >practice. > > > > What excuses did I make up? What excuses did I even mention? > > This is your lame excuse for not doing it: > > > About SOAP and Web services - I agree with you that it would be > very good > > to have built-in support for it in PHP. However, suggesting > this kind of > > ideas is usually pretty pointless, unless you're willing to actually do > > something about it. I think the only time it worked in the > past was when > > Sascha picked up the challenge of creating a session module for PHP, > > because PHP really needed one (kodus to Sascha on that) - but > that's the > > exception to the rule. > > Meaning, "your idea is good, but my excuse for not doing it is because > of the way you suggested". Very lame excuse! > > > > I said that the preachy way in which you presented your idea is > not going > > to get you anywhere, let alone PHP. You may have encouraged someone to > > That is really silly because you think that following my suggestion you > would be doing me a favour! ahahahgah > > Zeev, get a grip. My developments are no longer PHP specific. I don't > care about built-in Web services support in PHP for myself. I would not > use them in my software. However, it would help me to make a better case > to convince people to stick with PHP. I am sorry that you are so > obcessed to do whatever you think I want, that you lost focus and still > don't see that doing that you are only causing harm to your business. > > Zeev, take some vacation, you seem to be really needing them! There > seems to be already some key developers taking vacation of PHP > development after you have been refusing their proposals in Zend 2 > list. Maybe you need a rest to stop putting down people that only come > here to bother to help you. > > > > write a CORBA extension, and you definitely pissed off lots of other > > developers. Is that good? Did it get you or PHP anywhere better? > > Are you pissed Zeev? Really? > > How do you feel I felt when you (PHP developers) broke backwards > compatibility of some PHP functions after many years working the way > they did, causing my site to stop working when I upgraded to PHP 4.1.0? > How do you think I felt when you overruled 3 alternative solutions to > repair the damage that you caused by making the mistake of breaking long > standing PHP functions, thus making me spending several days to fix my > site to ban such broken functions from its code? > > Don't come to me playing to be a victim of me pissing you, when you have > not been such a saint! > > > > > I can assure you, by the way, that Andi didn't ask for out-of-the-blue > > ideas from people who don't have any idea on how to do them, and have no > > intention of doing anything about them themselves. How about a wiseguy > > that will suggest to improve the speed of PHP 10 times around? Great, > > we're all for it, but have a plan on how to do it, or be > willing to work on > > a plan if it's accepted. > > Read my original message, there is a plan on how to provide the > suggested feature. Keeping putting down my suggestion as you do, only > makes your quest to fight me, even sillier. > > > > > >It is like Richard Heyes said very well, while Andi asked for > > >suggestions you promptly jumped in just to say it is pointless as if it > > >was urgent to refuse my suggestion, or at least present an excuse for > > >not implementing it. > > > > I did not refuse your suggestion or present any excuses. That's only in > > You are in denial. Read this message above again. > > > > your preset mind. I said it's good, but I also said that you > presented it > > in a very, VERY poor way, as you tend to often do. There's no > conspiracy > > There's the lame excuse again! > > > > against you, I can assure you that, and if you cause many > different people > > to object to the way that you present your ideas, you can > assume that the > > problems lie in your hands, and not everybody else's. > > Good, revert the problem now to pretend that refusing people's > suggestions (not just mine) has you been very into lately is just a > problem of somebody else, never you. My mother was right, there is never > one stubborn person alone. > > > > > >I hope you see this time is not "just Manuel". Things could have worked > > >much better if you have to refused the countless times that I bothered > > >to lend a hand, even if it was just presenting ideas and no code. Too > > >bad that you usually only wanted to get me wrong as if what I was > > >suggesting was not going to work in your favour. Anyway, it is > not soon, > > >but may be is not too late... > > > > I never refused a single time you bothered to lend a hand - I > don't recall > > a single time (other than this vague virtual marketing idea > which I didn't > > Good, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. > > Anyway, you memory is really, really short. I don't have time nor > patience to repeat myself about all the incidents regarding suggestions > that I made in the last 4 years to improve PHP. > > On the bright side, it is also funny that some suggestions that I made > ended up being implemented some time later after the discussions were > over. So, I think it is better to end up this discussion now so somebody > implements my suggestion, pretending that it was not suggested by > myself. I don't care. When things end up being implemented, it just > proves that these heated discussions were not in vain, regardless if > anybody ever attributes the progress to my suggestion, that I honestly > do not need any credit for. > > > > consider too good). As far as I recall, you said that Rasmus > refused your > > help in the past, and I think I was the one that actually > pushed for you to > > get a CVS account. Not sure though, it was a long time ago. > At any rate, > > with all the differences I have with Rasmus, and God know we > have lots - if > > he refused to accept your help, you must have done something > TERRIBLY wrong. > > Of course, I must have done something TERRIBLY wrong at least from his > point of view. My guess is that I challenged his points of view in a > public forum with technically correct arguments that he seemed to not > like. I don't know, you have to ask him to let you know for sure. > > Anyway, the impression that you guys are passing is that you have this > great view of yourselves that you are so good at this, that no "Manuel" > should be allowed to challenge you. After all you are the kings a PHP, > and nobody can challenge the kings, because the king is always right, > and if "Manuel" challenges the king, "Manuel" must be wrong and his > arguments must be fought until he shuts up. > > Maybe you do not intend to look this arrogant, but the fact is that you > look arrogant to many of us, not just the "Manuels". The difference is > that the "Manuels" dare to challenge the kings in public. Some people > appreciate and cheer quietly, others (usually people that just got CVS > accounts recently and want to show appreciation for that grace) join the > kings and rage publically against "Manuel" because he is just one zealot > and it is easier to fight one "Manuel" and fall in the grace of the > kings. The funny part is that while this happens, I get some private > e-mail of support of people amazed because I dare to challenge the kinds > with pretty important questions. > > Enough chat, one day you will realize that you are just shooting the > messenger just because he did not bring good news. Hopefully it will not > be too late to react to such not so good news. > > Regards, > Manuel Lemos > > -- > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
