On 30 Jan 2014, at 3:32 AM, Erik Pearson <e...@adaptations.com> wrote:
> Au contraire -- most of the changes I'm making are driven by the application > need, not just to clean up the code. Of course I do also have an interest in > the design of the modules, from a programmer's perspective. But isn't this > the forum for such considerations? If you want to engage the community, you don't start with the position "everything's broken, and I demand you fix it for me". In this email alone you list functionality that you insist doesn't exist but does, you list feature requests, you list bugs that apparently exist but aren't articulated well enough to do anything to fix, and you're arguing that we should change the underlying design. Please identify one specific issue that reflects your need, and keep on topic with that issue until it is resolved. > All I really did was to recognize that there is a pattern in any storage > module which uses a cookie to associate a browser with a session -- the > session name. Rather than have each storage module mod_session_foo implement > this config item as SessionFooCookieName, why not make it a core property of > a session? And once you do that, why not just default that to some sensible > string like "mod_session"? Is there, realistically, a session storage module > that would not use cookies as a browser association method (at least as an > option)? Yes there is, please familiarise yourself with per user sessions: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_session_dbd.html#peruser Regards, Graham --
