Re: Lazy writing in the session, session-lock-ini, and bug #68331
| From: | Yasuo Ohgaki | Date: | Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:55:39 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Lazy writing in the session, session-lock-ini, and bug #68331 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-78797@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi Andrey,
The problem was "there was partial patch, while patch that overwrite it
was not merged". I was confused.
Offensive patch is removed for now already and this issue is closed.
Regards,
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Andrey Andreev <narf@devilix.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:02 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> > HI all,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Damian Wadley <php@requinix.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apparently this caused
> >>> problems for some people as they made 68331 a few days ago.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just a quick note for this. The user would like to access session
> >> data(session handler)
> >> regardless of data modification. I suppose it could be solved if session
> >> has user space
> >> "update" handler as I suggested originally.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, session_write_close()/session_commit() may be changed, so
> >> that it
> >> is called unconditionally during shutdown. I have to read the code to be
> >> sure if this is possible.
> >>
> >> BTW, anyone know the reason why the user need to call
> >> session_write_close()/session_commit()
> >> unconditionally? Accounting, perhaps?
> >>
> >
> > The issue user has reported could be solved easily by calling write API
> > during shutdown, IIRC.
> > An explicit flag for this might be needed.
>
> There already is such explicit flag in PHP 5.4's OOP version of
> session_set_save_handler().
> The linked test script in the bug report also explicitly registers
> session_write_close() as a shutdown function.
>
> The problem isn't that there's no call, it's that _the call itself is
> ignored_.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrey.
>