Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73071
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZz_d_wFPgwwYXJD-A+tz0Uf9KQ6uXNi1HhZGWFF1=W91A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPhkiZx=0Vr5p=7VZJD4PeD0ub-khSVMw3G03QhO8CC4xxm11A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZTU5HzM4oXyiu0PnS=W2Oz1uLP_BnyWBUXyYUTO0tMYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPhkiZz_d_wFPgwwYXJD-A+tz0Uf9KQ6uXNi1HhZGWFF1=W91A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:19:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXY86ri7b=rquo8Vbbh5ZoHOkwGBRoPWPup-SVPMu0WEgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f7acc30ab804f45dcba2
Subject: Re: Revert session_serializer_name(), session_gc()
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--001a1135f7acc30ab804f45dcba2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Andrey,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:

> > Users want to have contorl *when* gc is performed rather than luck. This
> is
> > reasonable. IMO.
>
> I like control, it's nice and *I already have it*:
>
>     ini_set('session.gc_probability', 1);
>     ini_set('session.gc_divisor', 1);


Of course you can.
It does not look nice as API. API should have good name for it. IMO.

session_gc() is useful for both low traffic site and high traffic site.
I don't see reason not to have explicit gc API. User may simply call

session_gc();

periodically by cron, etc.


>  >>
> >> And while session_serializer_name() is just redundant, session_gc()
> >> could cause performance issues.
> >
> > There is session_module_name(), why not session_serializer_name()?
>
> Why not session_cookie_lifetime()?
> Why not session_cache_limiter()?
> Why not session_entropy_file()?
> etc.


Those aren't changed by programs often.

As I wrote, 3rd party save handler implements their own serializers.
Not like above example, it is likely called with session_module_name(). e.g.

session_module_name('memcache');
session_serializer_name('igbinary');

It looks better than

session_module_name('memcached');
ini_set('session.serializer_handler', 'igbinary');

It's reasonable to have session_serializer_name(), since it would be used
with session_module_name(). API should have good name here, too.

We may discuss what we should do with module functions that modify it's
INI. There are number of them already. I think you need RFC for this.

My opinion is "There should be API with obvious name, if it is used often
or mandatory".

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--001a1135f7acc30ab804f45dcba2--