Hi, On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 7:26 AM Edmond Dantes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good day, everyone. I hope you're doing well. > > I’m happy to present the fourth version of the RFC. It wasn’t just me > who worked on it — members of the PHP community contributed as well. > Many thanks to everyone for your input! > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async I just re-read it again with all the feedback provided and I think it should get further stripped as it seems problematic to get an agreement on all of this and properly discuss it on ML all the details. I think this (or more v5) should strip the following: - exposing Scope and all operations in it. It means it should allow using only the default scope in this version. That should significantly reduce the size of the RFC as it removes structured concurrency and other parts related to scopes (including the reduction of error handling logic). - timer functions could also be removed even though it will make it less usable but the point is to make it as small as possible and those are not absolutely essential parts. - critical section should be stripped as well - nginx unit example should be removed as it might be confusing - I understand why it was added but it might be more confusing than useful - drop php.ini setting and just use default for now The idea is to make this as small as possible so this might be possible to discuss and get actually more people to read the RFC (this is just too long). This will also allow to concentrate on specific pieces like for example deciding whether to use FutureLike or Awaitable. We just had a chat about this work during our PHP Foundation and the agreement seems to be that this should be reduced and come in smaller pieces to be able to better figure out what's actually useful for PHP. Another point was also to make clear that this proposal is not meant to introduce a new "right" way to use PHP but it's actually useful everywhere. We actually discussed this with Edmond privately and agreed that this is useful for FPM as well and he even created an example proving it. So we should just try to make it clearer in the RFC as there was some confusion in the discussion. Kind regards, Jakub
