Re: Re: Revert session_serializer_name(), session_gc()

Hi Andrey, On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> 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 yohgaki@ohgaki.net