Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73261 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 19156 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2014 07:44:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Mar 2014 07:44:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.217.174 mail-lb0-f174.google.com Received: from [209.85.217.174] ([209.85.217.174:45235] helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BF/5A-17561-769F7235 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:44:40 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u14so4418867lbd.19 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=eKrBzTsPZQNlvKhqmuW4/L1YtMTMQEcSoXgHQZ6IYIM=; b=OpJ98o9Ulzo9ikiEwlMsiijso6td+TbybwTNeYKHCoWfUkv9Bd7lC+GWtAX+Xgfm0K gYZ+VXnKxCgleQMCpHiLHYZdagti7pLcZDQ1OFr4vM2etmpIn3OtGF7kkbD9NkYPAKzg 2VOrQCG/Afb+bUaXGJWsGsli4xSrxd1VXVEjd38eLZvWXub84rRFp6QaCPixXyRN3rUC jS2SRvKS6nYrVQMTVQVVgWwmNY61g964pZuEs2eBJvPfSjFQy460HMhRLZqK9jEf2fgk SvYdavedmJ7Lpznz1fOEszh+rFTfhksn3O1SmB2gO0EXZh6shUGFMADAO1z811JEHqYD C6OQ== X-Received: by 10.152.18.229 with SMTP id z5mr20336298lad.27.1395128676838; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:44:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.205.73 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:43:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5327DD6E.6030402@sugarcrm.com> References: <5324FE40.1070704@sugarcrm.com> <532603A0.8060802@sugarcrm.com> <5327DD6E.6030402@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:43:56 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HLqzh6tEDWdXKrQ74wUoXHBc3t4 Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev Cc: Andrey Andreev , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014940ea32f7c004f4dcb543 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about read_only, lazy_write sessions From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) --089e014940ea32f7c004f4dcb543 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Stas, Thank you for the comment on github. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote: > > I agree. > > If nobody objects, I'll remove the option. Please send mail ASAP! > > I think defaults should not change in minor version, unless there's a > very good reason for it, and here it's not a very good reason. Session > module is very sensitive, and doing changes in it should be very > conservative to not break people's workflows. While new behavior serves > an important use case, it may not be everybody's use case, especially > with all handlers. Thus, I would rather have it an option - exactly as > voted. When we move into PHP 6, where certain major changes are > expected, we can change the defaults. But I think introducing such > change in a minor version is unnecessary risk. > And also it subverts RFC process as it's not what the vote was for, and > it's a substantial change - default behavior change (means, everybody > affected) instead of option (means, only people using the option affected No problem. How about making it a INI option? It makes session_start() option handling code a little simpler. It's not mandatory, though. > > When is the beta due? I made PR so that RMs can merge it. > > I'd recommend waiting for it to be thoroughly reviewed before merging. I > myself will try to take a look in coming days, as my schedule allows, > but it may take time to polish some things. Sessions are very sensitive > area, so we need to be very careful. I agree. Even for beta, we should be careful. I found issue with object based user save handler. Unlike procedural user save handlers, object based user save handler uses previously used save handler as it's base class (some what) I think we are better to have another SessionHandler object that support new APIs. We can handle create_sid() method rename with new object also. We may keep current implementation undocumented and may document it new one (createSid()) only. I will name it "SessionUpdateTimestampHandler". If anyone has suggestions, I would appreciate it. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net --089e014940ea32f7c004f4dcb543--