Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73112
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.160.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPhkiZx3iUo=4cJYkB7KPcD8TMs79kvLBrnBdGUZ4YqTq-+h-Q@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>
	<CAGa2bXY86ri7b=rquo8Vbbh5ZoHOkwGBRoPWPup-SVPMu0WEgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZyEqcx+UTPzpyYjz9pxWJnCNDO9pUMQNxvTpnrxmez9nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXb5rLU26NDDHkWDw-FYf=vh2J=LAGFrqU3A3JJpOTY_dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZyyXuqqybs+q8rnp_eJZDU0De2wMqwfv5mWiihr9GsueQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXboo3CGOP9x+fW0Q98aniBcXejkGSJv5=qygL9ia67FbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZzaTCE6sR=Rt=4VBmVOCo+uSQMREpf-fg6hWBrbCW+RXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXYWVoX_05BdS0M-V5G+B=4v-W-DPbWT8-vPrtd=gJtcCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ26g5TfiwjECNH_GbU6OCwCJdCCRJxKLUBL6wtw89XNo8P2eg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXbeucsEK2X1_wvtY_zMXs6guQAWxEMFhpjhyyOopq3sog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU6J01hP2+xjRUhTY9+rq9dTZyPOv9Mes_Xt0jiogsCE9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPhkiZx3iUo=4cJYkB7KPcD8TMs79kvLBrnBdGUZ4YqTq-+h-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:56:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZx_ztbVXFm10_4MSQyqkBDYVqBiCmNBdF4k7N9fev5uLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>, Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Revert session_serializer_name(), session_gc()
From: narf@devilix.net (Andrey Andreev)

Hi again,

Another 2 items that didn't go through the RFC process or any discussion:

 - Implemented Request #20421 (session_abort() and session_reset()
function). (Yasuo)

https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=20421

Does this change mtime of the session?
I also have other (rather philosophical) arguments against this, but I
don't want to get deeper into it now ... it should just be reverted
together with session_serializer_name(), session_gc() on the basis of
no discussion at all.

 - Implemented Request #17860 (Session write short circuit). (Yasuo)

   https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=17860

The problem with that is that there's no API exposed for custom save
handlers to decide when to only update mtime or the whole session. I
think the question was exactly about that, actually.
It is also not clear how is that implemented and for which of the
available session handlers ... is it all of them?

Then later (note that it *already is implemented*), it was voted as
part of this RFC, which made it optional:

    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/session-lock-ini

This RFC is broken to begin with ... what ended up as accepted from
this RFC was actually very far from the main intention behind it (and
it silently accepted passing ini options to session_start() with no
explicit voting for that - just saying, otherwise I like that
feature).
Also, there's no description for "read_only" except the obvious - that
it only reads. It should at least mention that a shared lock can be
used for that case.

IMO, if this feature had gone through proper discussion instead of
just presenting a yes/no option as part of another change, we'd end up
with a different solution.

Actually, I'd like to ask if it's possible for an RFC to override a
decision taken from a previous one? And can it be done quick? Or if
not - can that be postponed for 5.7?
The lazy_write option is nice, but it's not optimal and it would be
embarassing if it makes it into 5.6 only to be later reversed in favor
of a better solution. What I'm thinking of is a session_is_changed()
function and "lazy_write" at all times (there's no reason for that to
be optional).

Regards,
Andrey.