Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73188
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXZiBuw_L_ehvTZb5_UUedtbS0n4GXYUjtKix0S9DX_8KQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPhkiZw5xWRkc=ofh-nB5ZkjfThZFkH_+pK5RZaQFLKhno7u7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXZiBuw_L_ehvTZb5_UUedtbS0n4GXYUjtKix0S9DX_8KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:39:42 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXZ-Ddwb-NfEnALTLaJsPS3bg455rOo5Cr6T4tY5+3w_AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c27b7aea840104f4af62e9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about
 read_only, lazy_write sessions
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--001a11c27b7aea840104f4af62e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Andrey,

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm announcing the following RFC for discussion, with the hope that it
>> can get through before the PHP 5.6 release:
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/session-read_only-lazy_write
>>
>> As noted in it, I don't feel like
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/session-lock-ini was handled properly. Lack
>> of attention to it alone is demonstrated by the fact that a total of
>> only 10 people have voted. I hope that this follow-up receives more
>> attention, so that we can avoid a potential mess.
>>
>
> "lazy_write" is not accepted. So you don't need to mention it in the RFC.
>
> "read_only" option is better/much faster version of "session_start();
> session_commit()".
> If the name "read_only" is confusing, better name would be appreciated.
>
> BTW, I have to commit accepted RFC change now. Option name may be changed
> before release. "write short cut" is there, since it does not affect
> existing behavior
> nor save handlers at all.
>

Oops, Proposal 2 is actually a "write short circuit". Therefore, if you
think this is not
needed, you may mention it in the RFC. I was mixed up with "unsafe_lock"
option, sorry.

I'll make changes required, then merge it soon.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--001a11c27b7aea840104f4af62e9--