Honestly, I'm sick of the near-religious argument against server side sessions. I've seen this position on many open source projects lately.
Without going into a philosophical debate on the benefits/uses of sessions themselves -- I'm just going to say the following : It's great that many people think Cookie/Client based Sessions are appropriate for their own needs and want to educate others on how awesome they are. But it's arrogant to think that Cookie based Sessions are appropriate for all needs. Encrypted Cookies can handle a lot of use cases, but not all. Server based sessions are still appropriate if not necessary in many use cases. Pyramid doesn't make a decision or force people into design choices for (just about, if not literally) anything else. Developers should be able to choose which types of Sessions they want to use. Educating them on the appropriateness of a system is great -- but forcing a choice by only officially supporting ( or mentioning in the docs ) one over the other is just a huge issue when it comes to "adoption" and "attractiveness". The recent changes -- even in the docs alone , are re-positioning Pyramid from having "Awesome Session support: cookie or virtually any backend !" to "cookie or you can install redis!" One of those is very underwhelming. ( cue the sad trombone ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
