Hi Andrey,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Andrey Andreev <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd rather suggest this to be a separate function and not an option
> for session_start(). I've got this coverered in a draft RFC that I
> will announce for discussion later today.
>
It could have dedicated function, but it is not needed.
>
> Now back to the main topic:
>
> Please exclude session_serializer_name(), session_gc(),
> session_reset(), session_abort() and the "session write short-circuit"
> from the 5.6 branch.
>
I removed session_serializer_name() and session_gc()
(Although session_gc() is mandatory API, IMO)
I like the idea removing INI modifying function in the future release.
I don't understand reason why you insist removal of session_reset()
and session_abort(). They are just missing API for session module,
like session_gc().
There should be API (i.e. function/method or parameters) for distinct
operations that user may use.
I may agree if you could provide the reason why there should not be
these APIs.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
[email protected]