> On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Will Fitch <willfi...@php.net > <mailto:willfi...@php.net>> wrote: > > > > While not too specific to Rowan, reiterating the pecl/http approach is > indirectly what your asking for? I have mentioned this numerous times, but > you haven’t responded with a reason not to take this approach - which is an > RFC that was presented for discussion prior to yours. > > I'm trying to understand how pecl/http solves the aforementioned problem any > better? Again, I have no problem with competing ideas and it's not as though > one is prohibited from presenting an idea for the mere fact that there exists > a competing one. I'm just not seeing how pecl/http solves the problem I > intend to solve better. The reason I haven't responded to you yet is because > I'm stilling weighing the two to try and make sense of whether or not these > are in fact competing ideas or complimenting ones. > > Please, feel free to weigh in with anything that contradicts or concludes > what I'm saying. I certainly don't expect to have all of the answers.
What doesn’t pecl/http solve under your situation? The fact that’s it’s not directly integrated as part of ZE and handling process? I certainly have no problem with competing ideas either. However, the only proposed patch in this RFC is a gist with PHP pseudocode. > >
