Hi Tony, On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Tony Marston <tonymars...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote in message > news:caga2bxyax05jbjavyxfsjyy6xia+4u14npfgywscl4aoofq...@mail.gmail.com... >> >> >> Hi Marco, >> >> Thank you for explaining the reason why! >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I voted "no" because I don't see any advantage over using a custom >>> session >>> save handler, besides adding more API that partially covers custom >>> session >>> save handlers. >> >> >> You mean current OO custom save handler, I suppose. >> >> Firstly, current OO custom save handler design (use of previously used >> internal save handler as its base class) is not good. Overriding >> open()/close()/etc are useless, moreover harmful. Number of bugs >> proved it is not good. > > > I have been using session_set_save_handler() since 2002 to store all session > data in a database, and I have never encountered any problems. Why is it > "not good"? What bugs are there?
It works if it is used correctly. However, we've got number of bug reports for abuse/misuse cases. Refer to bugs.php.net for details. > > I do not see the point in this RFC. Did you read the RFC? It enables to write serializer by PHP script, clean and simple. It cannot be done by save handler. Besides, the reason why we don't have user defined serializer is "register_globals", the reason why we have problematic base class for OO API save handler is "register_globals". We should get rid of obsolete features at some point also. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
