2007/10/5, why the lucky stiff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:08:12PM +0200, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
I like the idea pretty much. What do you think of simply using a
Camping::H that is process-persistent ?
Sure, and maybe it doesn't really need to be process-persistent.
How
On 7-okt-2007, at 18:55, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
2007/10/5, why the lucky stiff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:08:12PM +0200, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
I like the idea pretty much. What do you think of simply using a
Camping::H that is process-persistent ?
Sure, and maybe it
Personally I'm all for different session drivers - some kind of
agreement what a session should and sould not do perhaps?
Then you can plug session/cookies, session/files or session/db at
your heart's content. The thing of note is that
I think it should be configurable per app (because some
Sure, and maybe it doesn't really need to be process-persistent.
Wouldn't that limit you to non-load-balanced apps, since you could
only have one simultaneous process if you want session consistency?
Evan
On 10/5/07, why the lucky stiff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at
On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Evan Weaver wrote:
Sure, and maybe it doesn't really need to be process-persistent.
Wouldn't that limit you to non-load-balanced apps, since you could
only have one simultaneous process if you want session consistency?
Evan
Can always make it easy and
5 matches
Mail list logo
