It seems to me that since Dynamic does what Memory does (but with the added feature of persisting to disk), that we should just keep the term Memory and make it transient (i.e, sessions disappear on server shutdown or timeout). I guess I don't really see the need for Memory to persist to disk since I can get that capability by using Dynamic sessions. If performance is the real reason to use Memory over Dynamic in a certain application, then maybe we should focus on fixing the performance problem associated with Dynamic (which I have yet to come across myself) instead of moving things around and changing names, etc.
I mean the default settings for Dynamic session stores is 10,000 sessions which I've assumed is an attainable amount before server meltdown. If you're web application has 10,000 open sessions at any given time you can probably afford more boxes to cluster your system around I would guess.
Personally I like the simplicity of the 3 pronged session approach. I just want if fixed :-)
Mike
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Ian Bicking wrote:
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.
------------------------------------------------------- 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
