Re: Re: [VOTE] Introduce session.lock, session.lazy_write and session.lazy_destory

From: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:31:01 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: [VOTE] Introduce session.lock, session.lazy_write and session.lazy_destory
References: 1 2 3 4 5  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to [email protected] to get a copy of this message
Am 30.01.2014 06:53 schrieb "Yasuo Ohgaki" <[email protected]>:

>> > > Alternative naming proposal: unlocked_thus_unsafe
>> >
>> > It sounds good idea. How about shorter name?
>> >
>> > unsafe_lock
>>
>> Well, from the user (PHP code) level it is not a lock at all. The
localized
>> flocking is purely for internal consistency of the individual read or
write
>> operation, in that case.
>>
>> That's why I wanted to have 'unlocked' in the name. And for such a
dangerous
>> option (*) I think that a very expressive long name would be a good fit.
>
>
> I understand the reason. It's descriptive, but 3 words might be too long.
> 'transaction_lock' might be good enough for users who know DBMS, but it
> may not be enough for others.
>
> Does anyone have short and good name?

If you insist on it being short/shorter, I'd go for

unlocked_unsafe

or

unlocked

because I think, and keep thinking, that having "unlocked" there best
defuses the traditional expectation that sessions are locked during the
whole script run - thus minimizing the surprise to programmers at the PHP
level.

best regards
  Patrick


Thread (42 messages)

« previous php.internals (#71778) next »