Re: [RFC] Revert/extend/postpone original RFC about read_only, lazy_write sessions

Hi all, On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote: > >> > If save handler (regardless of user or C) does not implement its own > >> > update(), > >> > then update() will not be called, instead write() is called. > >> > To do that, address of the dummy function is compared. > >> > >> Ok, so why is 'lazy_write' an option at all then? I don't see a reason > >> why it shouldn't be the default and even mandatory behavior. > > > > > > I would like to make 'lazy_write' default to TRUE, since there would not > be > > 'unsafe_lock'. > > I wouldn't try to add 'unsafe_lock' anymore. It's safe to make > 'lazy_write' > > default to TRUE. > > > > 'lazy_write' needs a little memory, but it's session. Session data would > be > > small enough > > for almost all apps and memory is cheap these days. > > (Note: I've implemented 'lazy_write' by using MD5 hash at first, but > > benchmark revealed > > simple store and string compare is much faster. It's saving loaded > session > > data and > > compare to check modification with new patch.) > > > > Any objection/comment make this default to TRUE or automatically apply > > 'lazy_write'? > > I think automatically applying 'lazy_write' is good choice. > > My quesion was rather why does it need to be optional at all > (regardless of the default value)? If it is somehow handled at all > times, it becomes just a performance improvement. I don't see a reason > why performance improvements should be optional. > I agree. If nobody objects, I'll remove the option. Please send mail ASAP! > > >> >> Btw, this should probably be called updateTimestamp() instead of > >> >> update(), for userland at least. write() vs. update() can be somewhat > >> >> confusing. > >> > > >> > > >> > This could be changed. Better name is always good. > >> > >> Well, there you go - updateTimestamp() is a better name. ;) > > > > > > I thought of similar name. I choose update() since it seemed it is > matching > > name for read()/write(), but descriptive name may be better. > > > > Any comments for renaming? > > I'm all for it (naturally, since I suggested it), it could be > updateTimestamp(), updateTs(), updateTime(), etc. Anything in that > fashion would be more descriptive and less confusing. I agree this, too. I would choose "updateTimestamp". Please send mail ASAP, if anyone has comment. When is the beta due? I made PR so that RMs can merge it. I don't need git commit log. It's just a personal memo. Please feel free to merge with squash if RMs are would like to merge it now. It's good enough for beta. https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/628 Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net