+1 for PythonOption session_<variable> <value> Unless choosing a specificc configuration directive has something to do with security (i.e. no overloading of the settings in .htaccess files) ?
Regards, Nicolas 2005/6/15, Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jim Gallacher wrote: > > Just so I'm *really* clear, do you mean the current scheme for session > > handling would also be disabled? > > The more I think about it, you're right; you can just set up the session > stuff without directives just the same by importing mod_python.Session and > going from there. So that line of reasoning has no merit. > > I was confused by the adding of a new directive, which seems to indicate > that there would be some "default" Session handler being loaded if you > didn't specify one using the directive. Because in the old scheme there > wasn't really any "default" session handling, unless you outright imported > the libary and started using it. If it's going to work exactly the same way > as it did before, except now you can configure some defaults in the apache > config, then I'm probably worried over nothing. But it probably should have > an option for "None" or "disabled," which would be the default, meaning I > don't care to use the supplied session handlers, even though it didn't > really do anything extra than it does now. > > But in that case, why not use "PythonOption session_<config_var> <value>", > which is probably what you were asking about in the first place, which I > think someone else mentioned as well. That doesn't imply that there is some > kind of default session handling, just the standard way of passing values > from the apache config to python code. If the plan is to implement a pure C > session handler, then PythonSessionOption makes sense, but otherwise it > doesn't seem necessary. > > Nick >
