Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

From: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:40:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message

> On 29 Jan 2015, at 12:18, Crypto Compress <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> * Why should we have our own HTTP API and not follow PSR-7?
> 
> possible points:
> - PHP-FIG propose no implementations; pecl_http does
> - native implementations should be faster

I don’t see how that’s relevant: I’m talking here about the API, not the implementation. Why
should PHP’s HTTP API not be PSR-7?

> - PHP-FIG focus on frameworks; pecl_http in core is useable without dependencies by every
> simple script

Also irrelevant, there’s no reason it couldn’t use PSR-7’s API.

> - PSR-7 is a moving target; pecl_http exists for ten years

Fair point.

> - PSR-7 can be complementary to pecl_http not the other way around (c code can't use php
> code?)

Not necessarily true.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/






Thread (55 messages)