Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70996
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXYUZtEMRUGQXA8vPtPiK0vRR26W2O3RbhN17A4t4noN0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXa0tn2OODr4kVC_FYtkpXsR6jGwc4172dq3WSRCdpkAzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZWDO7indUjK2==L1_dcXOSh20bSdXmYTN_r4AfnzexZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52C61F08.6020105@gmail.com> <CAGa2bXYUZtEMRUGQXA8vPtPiK0vRR26W2O3RbhN17A4t4noN0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:14:38 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXaqrqLFcr9YB9QobYmdNsHsyxAPbcS8g4Uq6aF2yHvuiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113458965cc1b404ef191509
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Introduce session.lock, session.lazy_write
 and session.lazy_destory
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--001a113458965cc1b404ef191509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>

BTW, I'm not the one who named session_write_close()/session_commit().

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--001a113458965cc1b404ef191509--