Thats a valid point but that can be addressed in some nice ways. The documentation can mention it somehow and that doesn't mean somebody else should use that framework/lib for every project/case. That would be similar to saying that we prefer Linux over Windows, just because we use Linux hosting and better would be to instead build our own operating system, just so that people don't get inclined to one side or another A bit of a stretch of an analogy but more or less the same idea.
The fact that we use some well known framework/package would reduce the barrier to get more people involved in the project, now and for the future. Not using them is going back to 2005 when everybody had their own framework. I am not suggesting any framework in specific but think there as some good options out there. We would be quit well served with a micro-framework as we basically need just some kind http stack + routing, but that is deep down the execution plan discussion. On 19 July 2017 at 21:12, Andreas Heigl <andr...@heigl.org> wrote: > Am 19.07.2017 um 19:12 schrieb Mathias Grimm <mathiasgr...@gmail.com>: > > > > I think it's a great idea about docker, although a separated project. > > > > The wiki says minimum php is 5.3 but that page is from 2013 and would be > > really great to not depend on the mirrors php version, although we can > > write beautiful php even in php 4 (never did prior to 4) > > I think the most important thing is that the PHP-website keeps a > VanillaPHP-approach. Every library or framework used for a rewrite of the > PHP-website will be looked upon with different eyes and will therefore seem > to be "PHP-approved" to people not that deep into the website (so about 99% > of PHP-developers). So the PHP-website would - even though that might not > be intended - recommend frameworks or libraries over others. And we would > not want that! > > Just my 0.02 € > > Cheers > > Andreas > > > > > > > >> On 19 July 2017 at 19:50, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > >>> We should really change that and fully move to HTTPS. > >>> > >> I was actually just thinking how lovely it would be to re-architect > >> the mirroring process to use docker images. > >> > >> Benefits: > >> * Usual consistent/predictable deployment arguments... > >> * Full control of the webserver and PHP version (and extensions) used > >> on mirrors. > >> * Use docker hub as the distribution channel. (https out of the box) > >> * Extra level of isolation for site hosts (web-php isn't alone on its > >> hosts AIUI) > >> * Apparently we could even add container image signing. > >> > >> That's sort of an orthogonal project to rewriting the site code, but > >> it's arguably a simpler task to undertake. > >> > >> -Sara > >> > >
