At 10:20 25/05/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I kind of went off in a huff yesterday with the whole PECL/pear issue with >msession, it's over and lets move on. I did, however, want to explain *why* >I think msession should be in the main code. > >In *big* websites, you need multiple web servers serving copies of the same >data in a load balanced environment. The PHP session code, in its native >state, can not manage this efficiently. You need some sort of external >session >management system. > >Putting aside msession or SRM for the moment, the capability of linking >multiple PHP web servers is vital. As one scans the PHP site, it is not >immediately obvious how this is done, or that it can be done at all. You >have >to do a bit of digging to figure out how to do it. > >I have worked as a software developer for almost 20 years now, and it has >become obvious to me that people in charge of making technology decisions >are >not as technically savvy as we would like or is often assumed. They NEED >to be >spoon-fed. If they have to look for something, they will probably assume it >does not exist and opt for the solutions that are marketed at them. > >Obviously I think msession is pretty good, but SRM works too. Regardless of >which, or even either, PHP needs to make an ?enterprise? statement. >Marginalizing this capability IMHO is not the right direction, I think there >should, in fact, be a stronger push for this sort of capability to be >built in >by default.
I agree. I also think that a solution like msession should be pushed despite the work on SRM because many PHP programmers will not want to go in the SRM direction but will want a plug-and-play solution for the most common PHP 2-tier Apache <-> DB solution. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
