Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:12204 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86516 invoked by uid 1010); 17 Aug 2004 23:49:33 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86392 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 23:49:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.zend.com) (80.74.107.235) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 23:49:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 16511 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 23:49:26 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO AndiNotebook.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 23:49:26 -0000 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040817164902.04584dd0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: andi@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:49:21 -0700 To: Christian Schneider Cc: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <412298BD.10407@cschneid.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040817161212.044edd50@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.2.20040817161212.044edd50@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: setcookie() and Max-Age From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans) If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that we should always use Max-Age and just do the conversion ourselves? Andi At 01:46 AM 8/18/2004 +0200, Christian Schneider wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: >>Not sure if an how this could be added to setcookie() because of the >>already rich amount of parameters it accepts. Would it make sense to have >>something like setcookie_max_age() or something similar? > >I think we should overload the expire parameter. Somewhat ugly but >transforms the function into what it really should look like. Adding >another parameter or even function complicates the life of everyone in the >future and since a IMHO doable way exists I'd say we should keep it simple. > >Proposal: expire < 1000000000 (Sun Sep 9 01:46:40 2001) uses Max-Age and >allows up to 31 years of Max-Age. If properly documented this should be ok >IMHO. > >If people are afraid that someone hardcoded something before Sun Sep 9 >2001 in their source code then we could lower it to 100000000 (Sat Mar 3 >09:46:40 1973, 3.1 years) but I'd prefer the previous value. > >My .02$, >- Chris