Hi!
> User may extend SessionHandler class like
>
> class MySession extends SessionHandler {}
>
> but user cannot extend base class(SessionHandler) capability because
> user script
> cannot access to PS(mod_data).
Not sure what you mean by that. Absence of access to PS(mod_data)
certainly doesn't mean the user can not extend it's function, e.g. the
manual demonstrates EncryptedSessionHandler - is there something wrong
with that? Of course, there can be many more examples of it.
> I should have written "remove the SessionHandler class". As I wrote,
> user may
> extend SessionHandler class.
I don't think this is a good idea. There are valid uses of this, and
there's code using it. Removing it does not achieve any goal as far as I
can see.
> However, defining user session class as
> class MySession extends SessionHandler {}
> have no merit. Users must implement required methods to be useful.
I'm not sure why you say that - if they don't implement any methods,
wouldn't that class work exactly as the native handler? Isn't the native
handler useful?
--
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@gmail.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
