On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:36, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > No, it still saves the sessions to disk even if you use Memory. You might > want to use Memory because it is the most efficient of the session stores > (assuming sufficient amounts of memory are available), but still retain the > ability to restart the appserver and preserve sessions. The naming is > counterintuitive, I'll admit.
Should we rename it to avoid this confusion? For the foreseeable future we'd retain Memory with that meaning, but we'd make an alias (no good ideas at the moment :) and document only that, deprecating the old name. > We talked about adding an extra option to never store sessions to disk, but > I believe we never did. Patches welcome... I thought that was added, but I wasn't keeping track. There was a session corruption patch which wasn't completely applied -- it silently ignored errors and would have effectively worked like people wanted. But it silently ignored errors which wasn't good. -- Ian Bicking Colorstudy Web Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.colorstudy.com PGP: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x9B9E28B7 4869 N Talman Ave, Chicago, IL 60625 / (773) 275-7241 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
