Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cookie functionality as separate package? #2396

Closed
bmack opened this issue Nov 7, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Cookie functionality as separate package? #2396

bmack opened this issue Nov 7, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@bmack
Copy link

bmack commented Nov 7, 2019

Hello Guzzle maintainers,

first of all - I love Guzzle and its great usability and interoperability. We've been using Guzzle under-the-hood in TYPO3 CMS since 4 years.

Description
I've been looking into ways on how to work with Guzzle Cookie and use this in our process properly, and I like that it has almost no dependencies (other than PSR). I wonder if you're interested in separating the Cookie* classes into separate packages so we can depend on them more freely without having to worry about version concerns when it comes to the main Guzzle package.

That's why I wonder if you were interested in any kind of migrating the cookie functionality into a separate package like "guzzlehttp/cookie" as you've done with PSR-7 implementation. Hopefully, in the future, this could lead to a separate standalone library that people that do not use Guzzle (yet) to use Cookies in a generic way (or maybe it could become the boilerplate for a new PSR-X?)

Thanks in advance for your feedback, I'm fine with an answer if you'll be interested in doing so, or if you don't see any benefits for doing so.

Benni.

@sagikazarmark
Copy link
Member

Hi @bmack

I don't think we ever had such request before. I could imagine a separate library for cookies, but it would always have to be following Guzzle needs.

I'm pretty sure there are already tons of other libraries for cookie handling out there, quality is another question though.

I'm not against creating a separate package, but I'm not sure we have the resources right now for that.

@bmack
Copy link
Author

bmack commented Dec 15, 2019

Hi @sagikazarmark

thanks for your answer. Totally legit, and I see your point on the resources. Looks like we also need some more parts on top, but if something evolves around that, which might make sense to split off the package where I can help in terms of work load, I'll let you know.

I'll close this issue in the meantime

@bmack bmack closed this as completed Dec 15, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants