Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70995
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <52C61F08.6020105@gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXa0tn2OODr4kVC_FYtkpXsR6jGwc4172dq3WSRCdpkAzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZWDO7indUjK2==L1_dcXOSh20bSdXmYTN_r4AfnzexZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52C61F08.6020105@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:10:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXYUZtEMRUGQXA8vPtPiK0vRR26W2O3RbhN17A4t4noN0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c344e2a8e52e04ef190539
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Introduce session.lock, session.lazy_write
 and session.lazy_destory
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--001a11c344e2a8e52e04ef190539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi all,

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 02/01/2014 20:46, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
>> I've added session_discard() to RFC that discards changes made to
>> session data and close session.
>>
>> Since there is session_commit(),
>>
>> http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.session-commit.php
>>
>> session_abort() may be better name for it.
>> Any comment?
>>
>
> Since session_commit() is an alias for session_write_close(), the new
> function should probably also have "close" in its name (although oddly we
> "start" a session, rather than "open" it).
>
> Both "discard" and "abort" also sound a bit like destroying the session
> itself to me, rather than just ignoring the current changes to it.
>
> Perhaps something like session_revert_close() - "revert" being a closely
> analagous action in version control systems.


session_revert_close() sounds reasonable if session_write_close() is main
function.
Rather than session_start(), session_open() would be better name, since
there is session_write_close().

IIRC, session_write_close() was considered odd name and session_commit() is
made as alias of it later. Expect-able/consistent function names may be
better as main function and document them for new release. We should be
careful not to have too many aliases, though.

Main functions

session_start()   (or session_open()?)
session_write_close()
session_revert_close()

Aliases

session_open()   (or session_start()?)
session_commit()
session_abort()

Introducing session_revert_close() only seems good to me, but I don't mind
to have session_open()/session_abort() at all. Any comments?
Choosing good names is difficult ;-)

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--001a11c344e2a8e52e04ef190539--