> On 11 Mar 2020, at 23:36, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Conversation on this RFC seems to have diminished. As far as I know, I have
> answered all criticisms/concerns/complaints one way or another.
>
> So if there are no more questions, and there is no objection, I will plan to
>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 10:06, rowan.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 08:31, Jan Böhmer wrote:
On 11.03.2020 at 10:50, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 11.03.2020 at 10:22, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> Does anyone else have thoughts on the ability to specify the supported
>> types in th
Hi Stephen,
> On Mar 13, 2020, at 02:41, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
> I realise this is just bike shedding - the naming seems quite odd to me.
>
> This extension and the classes it provides are inherently about HTTP requests
> made to a php ‘server’, and the response it sends back - and yet it’s ca
> On 13 Mar 2020, at 20:39, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 02:41, Stephen Reay wrote:
>>
>> I realise this is just bike shedding - the naming seems quite odd to me.
>>
>> This extension and the classes it provides are inherently about HTTP
>> requests made t
Hi Stephen,
Good stuff. You have stepped through my & John's earlier thought-process in
much the same way that led to the current naming.
> On Mar 13, 2020, at 09:23, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
>> On 13 Mar 2020, at 20:39, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Do you have alternative suggestions or prefere
> On Mar 13, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> One other alternative John & I contemplated was
> `Web{Request,Response,ResponseSender}` -- do you think that might be a
> reasonable alternative to HTTP, one that is "adjacent" but not
> overly-specific? That would net us:
>
> - WebR
> On 14 Mar 2020, at 01:40, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> One other alternative John & I contemplated was
>> `Web{Request,Response,ResponseSender}` -- do you think that might be a
>> reasonable alternative to HTTP, one that is "adjace
> On Mar 13, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> (I realise some of these points are possibly more addressed to Paul than
> yourself, this is just where my brain went when I dug into what you were
> mentioning)
(after responding to your reply I think I was commenting on the
> On 14 Mar 2020, at 02:59, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> (I realise some of these points are possibly more addressed to Paul than
>> yourself, this is just where my brain went when I dug into what you were
>> mentioning)
>
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, at 9:55 AM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
> > As with anything any of us has written, I’m not 100% sold on
> > ‘Current{Request,Response}` even after writing it, but I think it’s at
> > least a little more specific about what they do, when the namespace is
> > taken into account.
>
> On Mar 13, 2020, at 4:25 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2020, at 02:59, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 3:23 PM, Stephen Reay wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> (I realise some of these points are possibly more addressed to Paul than
>>> yourself, this is just whe
11 matches
Mail list logo
