Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97229 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 74015 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2016 05:32:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Nov 2016 05:32:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:45312] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9D/06-20013-6546E385 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:32:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 46820 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2016 05:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm0-f46.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@74.125.82.46) by 0 with ESMTPA; 30 Nov 2016 05:32:02 -0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c184so51553351wmd.0 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:32:02 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01W4JfOmVwSYUGQlRs0p+LmAD7bhnnkFFbOeR8huU8U6COixJG3OFlhnV74Cuo3VgtiWaOlK/mrjwVbWg== X-Received: by 10.28.57.193 with SMTP id g184mr25856560wma.122.1480483915415; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:31:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.38.7 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:31:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <507c801d-1442-c6c6-581c-16ced9d35a53@fischer.name> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:31:14 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Markus Fischer Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC DISCUSSION] User defined session serializer From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi Markus, On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >> Btw, what is the proper way to signal a problem during >> serialization/unserialization? I couldn't figure it out from the RFC nor >> the PR and there doesn't seem to be a test case for it. >> Return null/false? Throw an exception? I added test and add return value description in RFC sample code. Serialize function should return "string". Unserialize function should return "array". Anything other data type raises E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR, so returning FALSE would be the reasonable choice to indicate error condition. To all, If there is no additional comment, I'll start vote in a few days. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net