Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97334
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP529249445031BBF07307D9E2850@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C26228A-C5FF-4B26-B70D-87C839341B5C"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:44:19 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXbbmPoByzGrFd=7qE0dCEJvmcTRZ5W0mKNTgZXKZDwBdw@mail.gmail.com>
CC: Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
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>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] User defined session serializer
From: bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)

--Apple-Mail=_4C26228A-C5FF-4B26-B70D-87C839341B5C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


> Am 07.12.2016 um 21:07 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>:
>=20
> Hi Tony,
>=20
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com =
<mailto:TonyMarston@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> "Yasuo Ohgaki"  wrote in message
>> =
news:CAGa2bXYaX05JbJAvyxfSJyy6xiA+4u14NPFGYwScL4aoOFQGhw@mail.gmail.com...=

>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Hi Marco,
>>>=20
>>> Thank you for explaining the reason why!
>>>=20
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> You mean current OO custom save handler, I suppose.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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?
>=20
> It works if it is used correctly. However, we've got number of bug
> reports for abuse/misuse cases. Refer to bugs.php.net =
<http://bugs.php.net/> for details.
>=20
>>=20
>> I do not see the point in this RFC.
>=20
> Did you read the RFC?
> It enables to write serializer by PHP script, clean and simple. It
> cannot be done by save handler.

We can just directly read from $_SESSION (in write) and use =
session_encode() (for returning on read()) as a workaround.
It isn't the cleanest way, but it works.

I appreciate a cleaner way, but it really should (see the last mail) =
cover everything, including the need to store to different locations.

> Besides, the reason why we don't have user defined serializer is
> "register_globals", the reason why we have problematic base class for
> OO API save handler is "register_globals".  We should get rid of
> obsolete features at some point also.

Could you please that explain further?
Also cleaning up obsolete features would be nice, rather sooner than =
later.

Bob

> Regards,
>=20
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohgaki@ohgaki.net <mailto:yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php =
<http://www.php.net/unsub.php>

--Apple-Mail=_4C26228A-C5FF-4B26-B70D-87C839341B5C--