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

Am 30.01.2014 06:53 schrieb "Yasuo Ohgaki" <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>: >> > > 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