On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Bob Weinand wrote: > > > Am 26.10.2014 um 16:09 schrieb Derick Rethans <der...@php.net>: > > > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Joe Watkins wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 23:06 -0400, Derick Rethans wrote: > >>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Bob Weinand wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Log: > >>>> Made phpdbg compatible with new engine > >>> > >>> <snip> > >>>> AM sapi/phpdbg/xml.md > >>> > >>> Although this patch does make it work with PHP 7, it also does do > >>> something absolutely different: it reinvents a wheel by coming up > >>> with a new XML protocol for debugging. > >>> > >>> So far I've been silent on PHPDBG, but seriously, is it really not > >>> possible to cooperate instead of reimplementating something that > >>> already exists? PHPDBG is difficult to use with its odd command > >>> line "commands". And then I haven't even spoken about the > >>> pretentious "awesomesauce" on http://phpdbg.com/ — a domain that's > >>> not even under the PHP group's control. > >> > >> A few weeks ago, I was at a conference where you told a room filled > >> with hundreds of developers that phpdbg was no good, because you > >> don't know how to use it. > > > > I was being polite. I should have told them it is useles for any of > > our users, instead of blaming it (wrongly) on my own ineptitude. > > No, xDebug has its use cases, phpdbg other use cases. They overlap > many times. And it’s definitely not useless. I’ve already been able to > debug real things with phpdbg and it works nicely for me.
I think this hits something on the spot: we don't define "scope" in an RFC. And scope creep is never a good thing. I would suggest that you come up with what scope phpdbg should solve, and don't get out of it. > >> This is a strange sort of silence, and does not invite us to > >> co-operate. > > > > Neither does calling internals people "dicks" or "knobs“. > > That’s definitely a bad thing… could we please leave this genre of > discussion out of internals? Sorry, I think that it should be called out *just* because it's not appropriate in any case. > >> When you invented dbgp there were other protocols in existence, > > > > There indeed where, but none of them were either open, or supporting > > more than one language. As that was the goal, the people from > > ActiveState—which *still, ten years later* have the best debugger > > frontend—and I sat around a table and implemented a > > language-agnostic debugging protocol. Used by Xdebug, and their > > debuggers for perl, python, tcl, ruby, and XSLT. > > Hmm? I hardly could find anything about that with a few google > searches... http://code.activestate.com/komodo/remotedebugging/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Zero#PHP_support http://hhvm.com/blog/6239/hhvm-3-3-0 > > >> not sure why we are expected to reuse a protocol. > > > > Because DBGp is virtually a standard in the PHP world. > > Because something is used by the only open-source thing in a field, it > doesn’t make it a standard. That you definitely have gotten wrongly. I used "virtually" as adjective. I perhaps should have used "de facto"[1]. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de%20facto > > >> It so happens that the phpstorm guys working on integration seemed > >> keen on something new. I don't see the problem in that. If the only > >> reason it exists is for projects like phpstorm and they are actually > >> going to put time into trying something new, then why the hell not. > > > > Well, if you'd have used DBGp, they wouldn't have to do any work. > > Ask them at PhpStorm. They were pleased to not have to use DBGp for > it. They just initially requested it because they didn’t knew any > better protocol. That’s all. So I actually did talk to them (in person, at ZendCon), and their account of events is pretty much the exact opposite. But in any case, that doesn't mean that reinventing the wheel again makes sense. It's certainly not helpful to for users, for which you are now fragmenting support. > >> If you had wanted to co-operate, you could have spoken to me at > >> that conference in person, > > > > I tried. You disappeared after the first afternoon. > > Maybe, but if you wouldn’t have given such a negatively talk on the > phpdbg part, he maybe wouldn’t have disappeared. Where you there? I don't think so. So please don't judge people on here-say information. cheers, Derick
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
