> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Sherif Ramadan <theanomaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Will Fitch <willfi...@php.net > <mailto:willfi...@php.net>> wrote: > > Sherif - I’m just going to be straight here. I haven’t seen support for your > proposal at all in this thread. You continue to try and make this case, but > it continues to be shot down with absolutely valid issues, and your only > responsive action is to argue back. Why aren’t you considering alternatives? > Everything - and I do mean everything - that you want is available in > pecl/http, and there’s already an RFC to get it into core. Why can’t you get > behind that and either support it, or move to propose an alternative that is > supportable by at least someone. Your current proposal is not supported by > anyone in this thread, and you still can’t see that. > > I admire and appreciate your efforts in making PHP better, but it’s time to > go back to the drawing board on this proposal. Everyone is against it, and I > feel this thread’s patience is running thin. > > > I think you're looking too closely at the problem to have an objective view. > While I appreciate your continued input and feedback, I don't believe you're > fairly judging my motives or my objectives. Who says I'm not considering > alternatives? You have to keep in mind the RFC is still in draft. I'm > technically not even putting up for discussion yet because I've failed to > make a coherent proposal. I get that. I'd still like to hear what others have > to say. I will make my own assessments of the collective facts. In the mean > time I'm OK with the discussion of my initial proposal being objectionable. I > gladly embrace failure as I expect to learn from it.
It’s only a failure if you don’t learn from it and stop. I admire your efforts. > > I'm not sure why it is you feel as though me having a technical discussion > with the community equates to me agreeing with everyone else's opinion or > ending a discussion on the note that it is no longer useful because everyone > disagrees with me. The discussion would be more useful if you proposed an alternative. So far, all I’ve seen is arguments why your original discussion could work. > > I gather valuable knowledge from disagreement and intend to pursue those > disagreements until I can reach a fully objective outlook on all of the > moving parts at hand. I don't wish to abandon this discussion because the > initial proposal has no support. Nor should you. I do feel that time has been reached as there are multiple people that have retired from discussing this further. That is an indicator that this discussion has run its course. > > I'm sorry if you feel that you are no longer interested in the discussion, > but can you at least refrain from cluttering the discussion aggressively with > your synopsis? Everyone is providing valuable objective outlooks and those > that have no more objectivity have seemingly refrained from further > discussion. That I'm perfectly OK with. What I'm not OK with is someone that > feels they must terminate the discussion because there is disagreement. I am > in the very process of understanding others' disagreements. Please do not > impede on my efforts by assuming you have any idea what is going on in my > head. I am very interested in discussing this - but not in discussing the same proposal over and over. We have beaten a dead horse, and the horse has come back as a zombie and been defeated twice over. I actually believe your point is valid that the HTTP interface could use some work, but the approach you’re pushing just isn’t it. > > Thanks.
