Re: [RFC] session_start(), read_only, lazy_write; Take 2

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > Hi Julien, > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net> wrote: > >> > In order to avoid further arguments about whether a separate function >> > for read-and-close is better or not, I've added an alternative >> > proposal - to rename the option to 'read_close' or >> > 'read_and_close'. >> > After all, the most important thing is that it's not 'read_only'. >> >> >> I agree "read_and_close" is much better discribing what it really does , >> so >> I prefer it. > > > I'm not sure if it's good to have "and" or not, but I'm OK with or > without > "and". > > Should I change it now? > I mean in my github repo. > I haven't committed the RFC patch yet. > Yes please. Also, for error raising, I saw your github discussion. We already raise errors in session functions when the session state is not the good one at some point. I suggest we do it as well for new session functions that's been introduced : session_reset() and session_abort(). Leave session_write_close() as it is. Thx. Julien