ditor)
> - myself (Sponsor)
> - Stefano Torresi
> - Matthieu Napoli
> - Korvin Szanto
> - Glenn Eggleton
> - Oscar Otero
> - Tobias Nyholm
>
> The by-laws do not stipulate a time-frame for how long the vote must
> run, though 2 weeks is the standard period. As suc
tthew Weier O'Phinney (Sponsor)
> - Stefano Torresi
> - Matthieu Napoli
> - Korvin Szanto
> - Glenn Eggleton
> - Oscar Otero
>
> The by-laws do not stipulate a time-frame for how long the vote must
> run. As such, I will set a maximum time-frame of 1 week, and cl
Hi Adam,
It looks like it's power creep from FIG 3.0.
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/pull/752/files#diff-7aeee0a55f5e81ea8a0b5f9dc76c6822R19
Cheers
On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 8:45:49 AM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote:
>
> Sorry, and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but when did the
I believe removal of it is going to cause a lot of BC Breaks...
For example in Slim we do extend from *ContainerException*
[1]:
https://github.com/slimphp/Slim/blob/3.x/Slim/Exception/ContainerException.php
We do actually use it.
Naming things are hard if and only if their function is hard to define
I still don't see any added value in turning the $next into a formal
interface.
Moving on from that:
NextMiddlewareInterface might be okay for a name...
NextMiddlewareInterface -> process ( Request )
On Sunday,
.
I guess this would likely be the focus of the new secretaries.
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:41:47 PM UTC-4, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-4, Glenn Eggleton wrote:
>>
>> If FIG is the standards body why has the FIG not formally c
If FIG is the standards body why has the FIG not formally changed it's name?
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
>
> Given that there's ~9 specs being worked on currently in various stages,
> the idea that FIG's work is "done" seems completely unsupportable.
>
100% agree with Gary and Paul.
*-interop projects are the embodiment of everything the FIG wishes to
achieve, "Framework INTEROPERABILTY group".
Can this be done in the purposed "Working Groups of FIG 3.0" ? I do not
think so.
>From the TLDR of FIG 3.0, context of talking about the Working
+1
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 10:15:30 AM UTC-4, Matthieu Napoli wrote:
>
> Thanks Woody and Andrew for your answers,
>
> Type safety is a valid point. I'm all for type safety, however in this
> case I'm not convinced it's worth it since it's just a callable that takes
> a request and returns
On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 5:41:07 AM UTC-4, Andrew Carter wrote:
>
> Type safety, IDE type hinting.
>
> A callable can be anything, an interface guarantees parameter types and,
> in PHP 7, return types.
>
This dynamic property is an asset, not a liability, which is why there is
so much
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 7:46:49 AM UTC-4, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> All,
>
> * Paul continues to provide his excellent (and observable) technical skills
>>
>
> This has been mentioned over and over again; how Paul has unbelievable
> technical skills. May I point out that he hasn't
Hello all,
I want to try to make a case for some changes on the PSR.
I realize it's been through a few iterations, but as a user of psr-7
middleware I don't see myself adopting the current 15 and here's why.
1) $frame
I have no idea what $frame represents, I cannot explain it to another
Lukas, I do apologize I see now that I had forgotten some facts in your
original post.
Paul, thank you for the timeline, it is very informative.
While I do feel as if private resolution was attempted, there was not
sufficient time given to you to change. Instead you were blind-sided by the
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 07/05/2016 12:57 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
> > Dear Voting Representatives,
>
> *snip*
>
> > As such, you can see that the complaint appeals to only one portion of
> "the PHP Community" -- perhaps a portion with which the
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:53:04 AM UTC-4, Alessandro Lai wrote:
>
> This discussion will not linger indefinitely, there is a two weeks
> expiration date set up, that is approaching.
> This expiration did not came out of thin air, is the standard pre-vote
> discussion duration here in the
15 matches
Mail list logo
