Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68416 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 48504 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2013 02:03:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Aug 2013 02:03:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.115 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.115 smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.115] ([108.166.43.115:59247] helo=smtp115.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0E/D7-06453-D8CF2025 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 22:03:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4EE6E1B809E; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:03:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp7.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 114171B8099; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5202FC8A.2070307@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:03:54 -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: Yasuo Ohgaki CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: <5202AF52.9060200@sugarcrm.com> <5202EE67.5020307@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] "php_serialize" session serialize handler From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Removing unneeded limitations, rather than forcing them to users, is user > friendly and the way to go. IMHO. If we wrote it from scratch, sure. But if we already have existing and working one, having people to deal with migrating data and incompatibilities that arise IMHO is not worth the additional benefit of having session variable named "!", without which one can live quite well. So I'm not against having option for new serializer that does it if somebody needs it, but I think changing the default for this and the disruption potentially caused by it is not a very good idea. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227