explore the viability of a simple http client in doctrine common about search

[mikelohmann]

Sure. The Buzz Client is capsuled by a doctrine-HttpCLientInterface. So we can just replace Buzz by a common doctrine HTTP client. Perhaps we could start with the interfaces we are currently building and add methods which you (and others) think that needs to be added to be a common doctrine interface. Later then we could move it to the common part.

[lsmith77]

like i said .. imho we can wait until you are closer to having a working and semi finished search API done ..

[henrikbjorn]

Why not adopt Buzz if that is okay with Kris ?

[lsmith77]

i think the scope Doctrine Common isn't to provide an http client that can do it all. But I do think its a good idea to keep the out of the box dependencies as small as possible. So I am sure in the end our HTTP client will not have all the features of Buzz, but will provide a good out of the box experience.

[mikelohmann]

Yes. Then lets start to define the Doctrine HttpClientInterface.

Mike Lohmann
0171 270 4156

Am 11.11.2011 um 08:41 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith
[email protected]:

i think the scope Doctrine Common isn't to provide an http client that can do it all. But I do think its a good idea to keep the out of the box dependencies as small as possible. So I am sure in the end our HTTP client will not have all the features of Buzz, but will provide a good out of the box experience.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#22 (comment)

[mtdowling]

I'd be happy to write an adapter and tests to integrate Guzzle with the HttpClientInterface.

[mikelohmann]

Hi,

It would be nice to have an other client supporting the client interface.

At a first view the Guzzle-Http-Client brings much functionality we
perhaps don't need. If you want to implement it with the current
interface it can be used but I don't see it as the common http client.

Imho we should find the requirements for a common http-client first.
Then design the interface.

I agree to Lukas and think we should wait a little more, until we have
a basic functionality working. Perhaps we than have a deeper
understanding of what we really need in the client and can define a
interface suits our needs.

What do you think?

2011/11/11 Michael Dowling
[email protected]:

I'd be happy to write an adapter and tests to integrate Guzzle with the HttpClientInterface.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#22 (comment)

[mtdowling]

I agree. I think it's a good idea to create an HttpClientInterface for common and provide a simple implementation that covers most use cases. I am saying that if you want adapters for HTTP clients after this interface has been created, then I can create an adapter for Guzzle.

[mikelohmann]

Ah. Cool. :)

2011/11/11 Michael Dowling
[email protected]:

I agree.  I think it's a good idea to create an HttpClientInterface for common and provide a simple implementation that covers most use cases.  I am saying that if you want adapters for HTTP clients after this interface has been created, then I can create an adapter for Guzzle.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#22 (comment)

[fprochazka]

The current elastic search is using elastica. I think this can be closed.