Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68389 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38602 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2013 19:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Aug 2013 19:23:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.99 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.99 smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.99] ([108.166.43.99:55679] helo=smtp99.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 49/F5-06453-ABBFFF15 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:23:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 343B51B03C1; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp5.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id C0FED1B03B8; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51FFFBB5.6000807@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:23:33 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arpad Ray CC: Yasuo Ohgaki , PHP Internals References: <51FEEEAF.1070705@sugarcrm.com> <51FEF5AA.5060409@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Session Id Collisions From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > I'm not going to repeat my arguments against the committed solution yet > again, but I really think we need a better one. You are free to propose a better one. Since this topic is being discussed for almost 2 years and nobody came with anything better, as far as I know, I think it is reasonable on this stage to go with what we have. If you have something better that is not BC - you're welcome to make a pull against master, if you have something that is better and is BC - that's excellent, let's see it and if it works better, no problem getting it into 5.5. But as far as I see now, that is the only viable patch that we had during pretty long time, so sitting and waiting that something better comes along doesn't look like the best course of action. I think we waited enough so that anybody who had better solution had a chance to propose it and develop it, and given it is a real problem, I think at least solution that works for now is a good thing to have. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227