Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:43:38 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: Hi Mark Conversely, I recently spent several /hours/ because of poor naming internal to CGI::Session. It uses ATIME, CTIME, and ETIME. The all lock very similar, and even the values look consistent because they are expressed in

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:05:33 -0400, Cees Hek wrote: Hi Cees I think we are just using the same tool for different purposes, and hence are looking for different features. It really comes down to semantics I think... I'm up your end of the scale. As I see it - for 'session' info: o Some info

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Ron Savage
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:15:23 -0400, Michael Graham wrote: Hi Michael I'd like to be able to easily create temporary sessions for specific purposes. For instance, it would be nice to create a session for a multi-page form, and use this to store the state between pages instead of using hidden

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:43:38 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: Hi Mark http://savage.net.au/Ron/html/naming-database-objects.html which, of course, I do not expect anyone else to follow... At the moment, I'm eastbound on I-70 without net access, but I'll be curious to read that later. I also

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:43:38 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: Hi Mark This just turned up on CPAN today: Object::Generic::Session -- Cheers Ron Savage, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 18/06/2005 http://savage.net.au/index.html Let the record show: Microsoft is not an Australian company

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-18 Thread Michael Graham
Now, in the editing screen, if the user submits a form of 310 staff details, with N fields per person (sigh) You really aren't kidding about this stuff, are you? :) I keep the OOMs in the session table, and compare them against the incoming data. That way, if the OOM has not changed I do

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread David Emery
From: Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:44:25 +1000 Hi Mark Just curious - would we be free to name the table and all the columns any way we want? How about if you set up the session something vaguely like this: my %sess_table = (

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:56:21 +0900 (JST), David Emery wrote: Hi Dave my %sess_table = ( tablename=my_sessions_table, session=field_for_frozen_session_data, timestamp=timestamp_field, email=email_field, param_2=dbfield_2, ); my $session = new CGI::Session( driver:MySQL, undef,

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Sean Davis
On Jun 17, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Mark Stosberg wrote: On 2005-06-17, David Emery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The couple of times I've tried working with Class::DBI, I found that it was quite noticably slow compared with doing the same thing via SQL + DBI. I think that could be a problem with

[cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Mark Stosberg
On 2005-06-17, Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mark Just curious - would we be free to name the table and all the columns any way we want? I don't think I'd put this version in v1.0, but it shouldn't be too hard to add. I'd probably follow the pattern I used in CGI::Uploader. I

[cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Mark Stosberg
On 2005-06-17, David Emery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if you set up the session something vaguely like this: my %sess_table = ( tablename=my_sessions_table, session=field_for_frozen_session_data, timestamp=timestamp_field,

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Cees Hek
On 6/17/05, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just still don't get this point of view. What is it that you perl-in-the-db-columns folks are storing that's so dynamic? The contents of a whole form? Help me see your point of view. Guessing that's what you are doing, here's a counter

[cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Mark Stosberg
On 2005-06-17, Jason A. Crome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see what both of you are saying, and actually see things both ways. The convenience of dumping any number of items into a session at any time is handy, without having a column to represent each individual piece of data. At the same

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-17 Thread Michael Graham
I find this whole session discussion fascinating. The legacy system I've been working with recently doesn't even support sessions, so when I have had to store some user-specific data, I've just added another field to the users table. Which is kind of a pain, to be honest. I think that

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-16 Thread David Emery
From: Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:14:00 + (UTC) On 2005-06-17, David Emery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a related note, have you looked at Apache::Session? I've read somewhere that it doesn't actually depend on mod_perl as the name would imply. I've

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-16 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:54:27 +0900 (JST), David Emery wrote: Hi David The timestamp field bit seems pretty straight-forward, and I assume most users want this for the sake of deleting old sessions. CPAN is your friend. CGI::Session::ExpireSessions More info:

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-16 Thread Ron Savage
Hi Mark Just curious - would we be free to name the table and all the columns any way we want? I have my own policy on this: http://savage.net.au/Ron/html/naming-database-objects.html which, of course, I do not expect anyone else to follow... -- Ron Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

2005-06-16 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:51:29 +0900 (JST), David Emery wrote: Hi Dave I've heard that module was made in Australia and therefore unsafe for civilized use. ;-) Geomagnetically speaking, we're at the top of the planet, so for all the rest of you I try to return SQL results upside-down, but you