Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73127
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain devilix.net designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXYZ=6LvC+4ntFCFJDp7=CjZjkm5XoHPVx9hzwPm9OnfFQ@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>
	<CAGa2bXYZ=6LvC+4ntFCFJDp7=CjZjkm5XoHPVx9hzwPm9OnfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:29:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPhkiZwNzWhFyZ=0kkcWVa39Z9QEtoaJbVGjZ_zB9DGXA5SVng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 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)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:
>>
>> > The _proper_ solution, would be to keep a timestamp stored with each
>> > session. kind of a last-modified timestamp. (expiry does work off last
>> > modification, right?). Anyhow, the trick is to check at session_start
>> > whether that timestamp plus whatever session.expire is set at, already is in
>> > the past - and when that happens, destroy the one session on storage and act
>> > as if it hadn't been found.
>>
>> Such a timestamp already exists, you can't implement sessions without
>> one because there would be no way to know when a session have expired.
>> For the files handler, it's filemtime() (afaik) and the behavior that
>> you described is probably already in use (I see no reason not to).
>
>
> Time stamp exists. It's correct partially.
>
> The time stamp is not usable for HTTP session manager to manage session
> properly. We may have new API that gets time stamp of session data, but it
> would require large overhead. i.e. Need additional API call to get time
> stamp = additional query to session storage. The overhead cannot be ignored.
>
> The proper way to get and set the time stamp is "get/set time stamp" when
> "store/retrieve session data". This way, there would not be overhead. User
> may implement in their script, but it's a session manager task to begin
> with.
>
>>
>>
>> However, that's not in the scope of GC.
>
>
> Managing time stamp is the main task of session GC, isn't it?

Yasuo, you took 2 paragraphs that belong together and put them out of
context ...

>> However, while Yasuo seems to always be keen on creating RFCs
>> immediately, I'd rather focus on the existing ones that are session
>> related:
>
>
> You are the one who said there should be RFCs ;)
> There are RFCs because I'm trying to change existing behaviors rather than
> simple bug fixes.
>
>
> Anyway, this was discussion of committed patch. It has much higher priority
> than not implemented RFC, I suppose. I still think there should be GC
> function. Programmers should control GC and there should be session function
> for it rather than INI tweak.

Exactly, focus on current tasks is what I'm saying.
In the timespan of 5 hours you asked me twice if I will write the RFC
_and_ wrote it without even waiting for the reply.

Let's stop this nonsense now and discuss more important stuff. :)

Cheers,
Andrey.