Future of the project

[sagikazarmark]

Hey @php-http/owners, @dbu and @ddeboer,

For the last few months I've made some progress with this project. Sadly, @egeloen disappeared so we couldn't work together or discuss the phases of the project. I really appreciate the help of everyone who participated. I think this will be a great part of the PHP community once it gets stable. I am completely commited to the project, and I already have some feedback that other projects would like to rely on it.

As said, @egeloen does not really respond to any of my attempts to contact him. @dbu agreed to contact him (or at least try it). Until then, I would like to make progress with the project and reach at least an alpha phase, so other projects can start working with the interface. This does not mean that @egeloen is not part of the team anymore, but we have been waiting for four months now...

The current proposal of the interfaces is in the terminology branch. Currently exceptions are being refactored. After that I am going to merge the terminology branch.

My purpose is to reach alpha till the end of September.

[dbu]

very cool. i think the terminology branch is pretty much ready with the exceptions coming good. i hope we get some more people to look over it before going alpha but either way a first alpha end of september seems a good idea.

i think my main concern at this point is the name of the thing. while PHP HTTP is a bold but justified claim, it is about the worst thing possible in terms of SEO :-/ try googling for "php http" and you will find about every web related website ever written. so we might need some more unique extra name that we use in descriptions and the documentation website so there is a chance to actually find this. (this does not need to be in the github organisation or such, and lets leave the namespaces alone of course.). not sure if we should change the composer package name though. if @egeloen would agree we could keep the name Ivory if that makes sense, or pick something else.

[sagikazarmark]

👍 for finding a better name. The basic idea with PHP HTTP was that it is a general organization for any HTTP related PHP project. Our main product currently is this adapter/client thing. As far as I know Ivory is rather a vendor (see IvoryCkeditorBundle) which is why we agreed to find a better name.

I would also like more people to review the interface before release, but I am not sure which is the best way to achieve that. Where should we "advertise" ourselves?

[hannesvdvreken]

Where should we "advertise" ourselves?

Friends of PHP, Friends of Symfony, The PHP League, PHP-FIG, conferences, #phpc, ...?

[sagikazarmark]

👍 I like the idea, although I am not invloved in all of those projects/teams. I am going to write an email to the League maillist, because I know those guys.

[sagikazarmark]

@hannesvdvreken If you also agree, I would like to invite @dbu and @ddeboer to the team, if they would like to join. They did an amazing work so far, which I would like to thank here as well.

[hannesvdvreken]

Yes, I agree :-)

No need to wait for my permission, but thanks for letting me know ;-)

[sagikazarmark]

Well, it's not a question of permission, but a question of majority. Currently there are four people in the team, you and me are active in the project. I don't want to make decisions like this alone.

[hannesvdvreken]

Understood

[ddeboer]

I’m in favour of reaching alpha as quickly as possible. We can leave out some adapter implementations and tweaks if that saves time. Instead, we should focus on making the docs more complete and user-friendly; they are currently written largely from an author's perspective. Having good docs invites people to try out the library and supply feedback on how to move forward.

I agree that the organisation name does not help in terms of SEO (fortunately, searching for php http adapter yields better results). Let’s drop Ivory, also to make clear this library is more a rewrite than a continuation of that library. It might make sense to have ‘adapter’ (or some metaphor for it) in the name, as that's really what the library is about. I’ll have to think a bit about a better name, though. 😉

[sagikazarmark]

they are currently written largely from an author's perspective.

Well, I am not really good at documentation

It might make sense to have ‘adapter’

Actually client might fit better, because after the refactoring we did in the last few weeks, it is rather a general client implementation for PSR-7. I am open to any suggestion for names. :)

Actually I would like to concentrate on the interfaces for the alpha, and provide one or more implementations.

[sagikazarmark]

After the terminology branch is merged, we are ready for the first alpha I think. Or at least for a review phase.

So we should have a name then. My plan is to rename this repository to the new name and repush it again as adapter, becasue a few packages already rely on it. The reason of renaming is to preserve history and issues.

[hannesvdvreken]

The packages that rely on this are also not stable, so a simple PR can solve any breaking package dependency links.

[sagikazarmark]

Right. What I am sure of is the renaming, repushing can be omitted. But we also have to ask @Seldaek to remove php-http/adapter from packagist then.

[Seldaek]

You can mark it as abandoned and point to the new name whenever you figure one out. I can delete later when it's not in use anymore.

[sagikazarmark]

Thanks!