Hi Ron, Given the cost to the coder of switching to a different sessions implementation, and the cost to the community of having a separate sessions package, is there any discourse on the benefits of adopting Data::Session? At the moment you've left me only seeing costs.
After some digging I found "See Data::Session::CGISession<http://search.cpan.org/~rsavage/Data-Session-1.01/lib/Data/Session/CGISession.pm>for an extended discussion of the design changes between Data::Session<http://search.cpan.org/~rsavage/Data-Session-1.01/lib/Data/Session.pm>and CGI::Session <http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?CGI%3A%3ASession>." But again, that just reinforces the costs and none of the benefits; there must be some or you wouldn't have gone to all that effort. If it's a redesign then I'd expect some examples illustrating what I can do with your package that I can't do with the two market leaders. Why on earth the horrendous naming irregularities? In that document you show that CGI::Session has perfect regularity when naming storage driver classes (all lowercase) whereas Data::Session has gone for the completely arbitrary: * ODBC - all caps * mysql - all lowercase * Oracle - Pascal case * SQLite - erm, random case That should be a big flashing warning signal that the people naming those classes weren't talking to each other. cheers, Nic ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
