Re: PSR for HTTP clients

I have to agree with Larry, having the behavior of a standard depend on some configuration is risky. If the goal of the PSR is to be used by libraries or frameworks (not end users) then it's fine to force a choice IMO. I have minor comments about the proposal, maybe it's too early to get into

Re: PSR for HTTP clients

I'm inclined to agree here. Error handling that may change based on some config not available to me in local scope, like PDO does, is a design flaw, as I then have to account for both possible error flows. I could be argued in favor of exceptions always or exceptions never (I'm leaning

Re: PSR for HTTP clients

I think I've been unclear or you misread something. A HTTP client MUST NOT throw exceptions for any response. So I very much agree with you. > On 11 Jul 2017, at 17:45, Josh Di Fabio wrote: > > This looks pretty good, but I don't like exceptions for 4xx and 5xx >

Re: PSR for HTTP clients

This looks pretty good, but I don't like exceptions for 4xx and 5xx responses, which smells of exceptions for flow control. Within the context of HTTP there is nothing exceptional about 4xx and 5xx responses. Rather, whether a certain response status is considered exceptional depends on the

Re: PSR for HTTP clients

Very good suggestions. Also, it's very pleasant to see a PSR pushed this way and backed from the start by a working lib and all the interestend players. Really good job! Il giorno lunedì 10 luglio 2017 00:38:32 UTC+2, Larry Garfield ha scritto: > > On 07/07/2017 12:20 PM, Tobias Nyholm wrote: >

Re: Working Group for PSR-5

I can join... CRB On Jul 10, 2017 5:25 AM, "GeeH" wrote: I am serious about getting PSR-5 moving again and would like to form a working group to get this accepted. From what I can see it's not in a bad place to be finished, it just needs a few more revisions and to have some