Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97326
Return-Path: <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 12338 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2016 20:50:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2016 20:50:19 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; 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] ([180.42.98.130:38376] helo=es-i.jp)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id B4/1F-11772-80678485 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 15:50:19 -0500
Received: (qmail 104910 invoked by uid 89); 7 Dec 2016 20:50:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-wm0-f51.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@74.125.82.51)
  by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Dec 2016 20:50:13 -0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c184so38022386wmd.0
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03D678t7Z2e8T13M6MxCwDz+wBqUWV2kpIpoRhGU8mSgC1qg+O0wVy4vqL2nv73sR9GwikdOaRJWK8GIA==
X-Received: by 10.28.154.140 with SMTP id c134mr1813420wme.25.1481143806305;
 Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:50:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.38.7 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:49:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXarCxSfn4cf2EbxG0sB+A_etOmcduNZ6r=7KZQdJimccg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXbsgQvAuLF_gdZShFP8RbJhtJ8njYi2q=Y977B8EDz=BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6sJaN1fLUBGEwWvjLu9tt2Gm=je8qG8wAik01+7NU+cHXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXYaX05JbJAvyxfSJyy6xiA+4u14NPFGYwScL4aoOFQGhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <70.0A.11772.8B1E7485@pb1.pair.com> <CAGa2bXbbmPoByzGrFd=7qE0dCEJvmcTRZ5W0mKNTgZXKZDwBdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGa2bXarCxSfn4cf2EbxG0sB+A_etOmcduNZ6r=7KZQdJimccg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 05:49:25 +0900
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGa2bXYttcQfWfiSXH0=_Lps1bQrfhTz=iVaVrUAQ6y7USigpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXYttcQfWfiSXH0=_Lps1bQrfhTz=iVaVrUAQ6y7USigpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] User defined session serializer
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

Hi voters,

Following people are vote against this RFC for now.

bwoebi (bwoebi)
danack (danack)
hywan (hywan)
leigh (leigh)
levim (levim)
nikic (nikic)
ocramius (ocramius)
peehaa (peehaa)
ryat (ryat)

I suppose bwoebi and levim vote against due to error and exception
usage. Thank you for feedback, Levi and Bob.

How many of you vote "no" because of error and exception issue?

IMHO. Exception in session module is out of scope of RFC,  mixing
error and exception in a module is confusing and inconsistent. Session
module is not language engine, so I'm not 100% sure if we should use
TypeError exception for normal module's invalid return type. However,
I don't mind much to use exception if many of us insist.
(BTW, "interface" parameter issue is out of scope this RFC also. It
should be addressed by OO API cleanup RFC consistently. I'm trying to
resolve issues one by one.)

I wonder how many of you understand this RFC is really a
"register_globals" legacy cleanup? Do you really think we should keep
"register_globals" legacy because of irrelevant issue?

Thank you for feedback!
Unless there are feedbacks, nobody cannot figure out what's the reason
behind for "no" votes.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki