Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71555 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53780 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2014 10:44:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jan 2014 10:44:51 -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 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:51942] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CD/00-53277-1A593E25 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 05:44:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp26.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0D1B8800B4; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 05:44:46 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp26.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id B47B4800B3; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 05:44:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52E3959D.4000103@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 02:44:45 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrey Andreev CC: PHP Internals References: <52E319F2.8080705@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Session IP address matching From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Still, that is not optimal. The desired effect is to call the session > file something like: > > __ I'm sure there's a reason why you want that, but I'm not sure I'm seeing a generic use case for this for core. Why would most of the core users care how the session files are named and require them named in a specific way? If you want to limit access to sessions to specific IPs only, there already is an easy way to do it, by overriding SessionHandler. If you want to make sessions stick to IP, there's also pretty easy way to do it too. So I wonder - why change the core if it can already easily be done with what we have? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227