On 22.10.2025 19:01, Edmond Dantes wrote:
- The glossary in "Overview" is good, but probably incomplete. The
examples there, with no description, do not help much and could be
removed, imo.
Do I understand correctly that I should remove the examples without
descriptions?
Examples in the Overview section aren't very helpful. I would remove
them from there, but maybe some of them need to appear later. I didn't
read it that carefully to suggest precise changes.
Or would it be better to add descriptions to them?
Although the last examples might not be very illustrative or easy to grasp.
the "Scheduler and Reactor" section does not explain much over what's in the
glossary.
What else do you think could be added?
The internal implementation doesn’t belong in the scope of the RFC, it
can change.
They don’t have any special API in the PHP userland.
The reactor can only be used directly at the C/C++ level, meaning
within a PHP extension.
It’s also intentionally impossible to directly affect the Scheduler’s behavior.
I think that it might be better to not mention them at all in the RFC.
Or better separate parts that describe userland and engine. The
structure of the Proposal is a bit chaotic.
--
Aleksander Machniak
Kolab Groupware Developer [https://kolab.org]
Roundcube Webmail Developer [https://roundcube.net]
----------------------------------------------------
PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com
