Re: Routing PSR

And if you have anything ready to share, I'd be interested to see it. -- Woody Gilk http://about.me/shadowhand On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Paul Dragoonis wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have been waiting to announce this until after I finish with PSR16, but > there's

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

Hey, Just wanted to say thanks everyone for the compliments and for the constructive feedback. If there's any more clarifications in the spec that you feel are *not* tight enough please continue to raise here or make a PR so we can review it. Many thanks, Paul On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:21 PM,

Re: Routing PSR

It seems like the people are ready for it. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 15:54 Paul Dragoonis wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have been waiting to announce this until after I finish with PSR16, but > there's no time like the present. > > I have been working on the routing PSR for

Re: Routing PSR

Hello everyone, I have been waiting to announce this until after I finish with PSR16, but there's no time like the present. I have been working on the routing PSR for some time now, given my passion and experience at integrating 5 different routers into PPI Framework Engine. I have spoke with a

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

Hi, PSR-6 makes it very clear that the expiration date/interval is really a maximum and that implementations are free to make the actual item removal happen anytime before. Actually, memcached kind of proved that *for the cache use case*, it can be verify effective to let the backend clean items

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

I will try to add it to the meta document or maybe add more text to the spec regarding this default expiration. I think that's the best way to make people aware of it. That said, the symfony cache I mentioned for example, is a PSR-6 implementation, and will most likely implement PSR-16, while