Comments for "HTTP_SessionServer"

» Submit Your Comment
Comments are only accepted during the "Proposal" phase. This proposal is currently in the "Finished" phase.
» Comments
  • Martin Jansen  [2004-10-05 20:35 UTC]

    PHP has built-in support for this in form of the msession extension:

    Do you think it is possible to fall back on msession if the extension is loadable?

    And it would be interesting to see how the system scales under load. (I'm aware that it won't scale like a built-in extension, but still ...)
  • Alan Knowles  [2004-10-15 11:50 UTC]

    as mike commented
    - implementing it as a session handler seems simpler on the client side.

    - just quickly looking at the server
    * @include (it's better to leave out the @ - if it fails, something is seriously wrong, and realistically it's probably a coding error, rather than a runtime error.
    - I guess the define for path is a short term dev thing..

    * this define's a little absurd.. - you really have to be short of programming knowledge not to know what r/w/rw mean..:)

    the client's a bit repetative: - 60% just relays into sendCommand.. - perhaps you dont really need the individual commands..?
  • Olivier Guilyardi  [2004-10-16 12:44 UTC]

    The protocol you use looks simple and efficient. But wouldn't it be more portable to write a msession client in PHP ? It could be loaded in case the msession extension is not available.

    This way, by coding the client-side only, and relying on the msession original daemon, it should scale pretty well.

    I don't know how standardized is the msession protocol, and how feasible it is to port the msession API though.

    Anyway, your idea seems good to me. An msession (and others ?) client could be included as an additional driver in future releases. I'm wondering if the Storage layer you have made would be the place to include a such driver though.