Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97320 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 72415 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2016 10:17:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2016 10:17:29 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 87.75.96.78 static-87-75-96-78.vodafonexdsl.co.uk Received: from [87.75.96.78] ([87.75.96.78:27519] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 70/0A-11772-8B1E7485 for ; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 05:17:29 -0500 Message-ID: <70.0A.11772.8B1E7485@pb1.pair.com> To: internals@lists.php.net References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:17:23 -0000 Lines: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3564.1216 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3564.1216 X-Posted-By: 87.75.96.78 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] User defined session serializer From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston") "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote in message news:CAGa2bXYaX05JbJAvyxfSJyy6xiA+4u14NPFGYwScL4aoOFQGhw@mail.gmail.com... > >Hi Marco, > >Thank you for explaining the reason why! > >On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote: >> I voted "no" because I don't see any advantage over using a custom >> session >> save handler, besides adding more API that partially covers custom >> session >> save handlers. > >You mean current OO custom save handler, I suppose. > >Firstly, current OO custom save handler design (use of previously used >internal save handler as its base class) is not good. Overriding >open()/close()/etc are useless, moreover harmful. Number of bugs >proved it is not good. I have been using session_set_save_handler() since 2002 to store all session data in a database, and I have never encountered any problems. Why is it "not good"? What bugs are there? I do not see the point in this RFC. -- Tony Marston