I'm with Jacob; I've always considered an in memory solution one that I was willing to live with. For smaller sites I like to use the in-memory version of sqlite. It's easy to implement and works quite well. Definitely having the session pluggable will be a huge help.
Michael On 6/6/07, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/6/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It sounds great, but memcached is a cache rather than a persistent store, > > so it doesn't guarantee to be able to give you back the data. Is it OK for > > a session to drop because memcached flushed it out? Or are you assuming you > > can size your memcached servers so that they never drop a session? > > I've always assumed that session data is basically "disposable". Every > app I've written using sessions won't cause serious problems if the > sessions get flushed -- the worst that would happen in that users > would need to log in again. > > [I certainly can't take credit for the concept; I first heard it in > one of Brad Fitzpatrick's (LiveJournal) talks, and I'm sure the ideas > been around for a while.] > > However, that's a good reason to have sessions pluggable -- if > persistence is important, then you need db sessions. > > Jacob > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
