Hi all,
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Andrey Andreev <[email protected]> wrote:
> Exacly why I wrote an RFC, except Yasuo already explained that current
> workflows (speaking of userland handlers) are not affected and BC is
> maintaned.
>
I found issue with object based save handlers, but it was solved without
any BC.
I also added createSid() method support. If both create_sid() and
createSid() exists,
createSid() is used.
Since user does not have to user Session module defined interface, user may
omit create_sid() definition.
Even without createSid() or my patch, current behavior is some what
confusing.
I'll document them all later.
> No problem.
> >
> > How about making it a INI option? It makes session_start() option
> handling
> > code
> > a little simpler. It's not mandatory, though.
>
> +1 from me, if it is to be kept as an option.
>
I'm about to modify patch to make it INI. No objections for this?
>
> > I found issue with object based user save handler. Unlike procedural user
> > save handlers,
> > object based user save handler uses previously used save handler as it's
> > base class (some what)
>
> Isn't that the whole point of it, that you can overload only specific
> parts of the default one?
>
It's solved. I should have try to prevent defining bogus handlers.
i.e. Existing C written save handlers do not support new API and object
based
save handler try to call it if user hasn't define method for these.
>
> > I think we are better to have another SessionHandler object that support
> new
> > APIs.
> > We can handle create_sid() method rename with new object also. We may
> keep
> > current implementation undocumented and may document it new one
> > (createSid()) only.
> > I will name it "SessionUpdateTimestampHandler". If anyone has
> suggestions,
> > I would appreciate it.
>
> I object, although it should've been called SessionFilesHandler in the
> first place, that way we could also have SessionMemcacheHandler,
> SessionWhateverHandler - way nicer than it currently is, but again -
> not the point of this discussion.
>
I removed new object. It's not needed anymore, since I prevented bogus
methods
registration.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
[email protected]