> > That sounds like it's working correctly. You got a new empty session and > > a cookie for it. I don't think it's expected that you won't get a cookie > > if your session is empty. > > > > So Rik, what's the point of getting a new empty session and cookie for > it, instead of just a "negative" cookie (a set-cookie header with > negative time)
Yeah you're right. It is probably better to put a "negative" cookie there if the session is non-existent/empty. I think I was going with a "that sounds like more code/more complexity than it's worth", but the privacy concerns (I've never cared about what cookies sites are throwing at me, for better or for worse) are fair enough I suppose. > and no session at all to waste space on the db? A smart session engine should probably not bother put any entries in the DB if the session is empty, but I take your point. -- Rik Brown http://www.rikbrown.co.uk On Sunday, 3 March 2013 at 22:47, Punter wrote: > > > On 03/03/2013 05:55 PM, Rik Brown wrote: > > That sounds like it's working correctly. You got a new empty session and > > a cookie for it. I don't think it's expected that you won't get a cookie > > if your session is empty. > > > > > > So Rik, what's the point of getting a new empty session and cookie for > it, instead of just a "negative" cookie (a set-cookie header with > negative time) and no session at all to waste space on the db? > _______________________________________________ > dancer-users mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users > >
_______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users
