+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
>

Reply via email to