Re: Revert session_serializer_name(), session_gc()

Hi Andrey, On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote: > > Users want to have contorl *when* gc is performed rather than luck. This > is > > reasonable. IMO. > > I like control, it's nice and *I already have it*: > > ini_set('session.gc_probability', 1); > ini_set('session.gc_divisor', 1); Of course you can. It does not look nice as API. API should have good name for it. IMO. session_gc() is useful for both low traffic site and high traffic site. I don't see reason not to have explicit gc API. User may simply call session_gc(); periodically by cron, etc. > >> > >> And while session_serializer_name() is just redundant, session_gc() > >> could cause performance issues. > > > > There is session_module_name(), why not session_serializer_name()? > > Why not session_cookie_lifetime()? > Why not session_cache_limiter()? > Why not session_entropy_file()? > etc. Those aren't changed by programs often. As I wrote, 3rd party save handler implements their own serializers. Not like above example, it is likely called with session_module_name(). e.g. session_module_name('memcache'); session_serializer_name('igbinary'); It looks better than session_module_name('memcached'); ini_set('session.serializer_handler', 'igbinary'); It's reasonable to have session_serializer_name(), since it would be used with session_module_name(). API should have good name here, too. We may discuss what we should do with module functions that modify it's INI. There are number of them already. I think you need RFC for this. My opinion is "There should be API with obvious name, if it is used often or mandatory". Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net