100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Jay Jacobs
I've been perusing the archives on the topic of cookie vs. url vs. user session tracking, and I can't find a solution that is 100% effective. Here's the scenario... using Apache::Session::DBI on a public site, where registered users can log in to get detailed information and "place orders" online

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tom Mornini
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jay Jacobs wrote: > I'm thinking of just relying on cookies, while not 100%, it's gotta be > close to 80 or 90% which may be good for this project. But I figured > others had faced this same issue and had an ample solution... We use in-URL session IDs for everyone, and give

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Drew Taylor
Tom Mornini wrote: > > On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jay Jacobs wrote: > > > I'm thinking of just relying on cookies, while not 100%, it's gotta be > > close to 80 or 90% which may be good for this project. But I figured > > others had faced this same issue and had an ample solution... > > We use in-URL

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tobias Hoellrich
A mod_rewrite recipe wouldn't help you a lot, because you actually need to parse the HTML, find all HREFs (and FORM actions) which point to your local site and add the session information to these. If you have a module which does process all the output from your handlers then this would be a good

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tom Mornini
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Drew Taylor wrote: > > > I'm thinking of just relying on cookies, while not 100%, it's gotta be > > > close to 80 or 90% which may be good for this project. But I figured > > > others had faced this same issue and had an ample solution... > > > > We use in-URL session IDs fo

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tobias Hoellrich
Tom, At 02:02 PM 5/9/00 -0700, Tom Mornini wrote: >That is the tricky part. :-) > >Here's the sneaky way to handle it: Put the Session ID at the beginning of >the URI. If a request comes in with a Session ID, then strip it out of >$r->urii. If a request comes in without one, redirect them to the

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Jeffrey W. Baker
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Tobias Hoellrich wrote: > Tom, > > At 02:02 PM 5/9/00 -0700, Tom Mornini wrote: > >That is the tricky part. :-) > > > >Here's the sneaky way to handle it: Put the Session ID at the beginning of > >the URI. If a request comes in with a Session ID, then strip it out of > >$r->u

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Jay Jacobs
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > Why is the session ID invalid just because they left for a week? Ask them > to authenticate again and take them right back to whatever they were > doing. > > On some sites bookmarking the URL with the session ID embedded is the > optimal behavior. >

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tobias Hoellrich
Jeffrey, At 02:32 PM 5/9/00 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: >Why is the session ID invalid just because they left for a week? Ask them >to authenticate again and take them right back to whatever they were >doing. > >On some sites bookmarking the URL with the session ID embedded is the >optimal be

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tom Lancaster
Yes, we use our own url-rewriting implementation of Apache::Session::DBI - we just use method calls instead of hrefs ($ui->a_href('page.html','querystring','other stuff') ) which whop a key= into the query string. In addition, to time out sessions we added a timestamp field to the sessions data

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Jeffrey W. Baker
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Tom Mornini wrote: > That is the tricky part. :-) > > Here's the sneaky way to handle it: Put the Session ID at the beginning of > the URI. If a request comes in with a Session ID, then strip it out of > $r->urii. If a request comes in without one, redirect them to the same U

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Rodney Broom
- Original Message - From: "Jay Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've been perusing the archives on the topic of cookie vs. url vs. user > session tracking, and I can't find a solution that is 100% effective. I've been thinking for a while now on a "complete" state maintainance system. Altho

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Drew Taylor
"Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote: > > On Tue, 9 May 2000, Tom Mornini wrote: > > > The cool thing about this is that relative links need not be rewritten at > > all, the browser handles it! > > This last part is a great point, and one that people would do well to > heed. I hadn't considered the implic

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread harm
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 03:36:38PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > > > > The cool thing about this is that relative links need not be rewritten at > > all, the browser handles it! > > I like to use session ids at the beginning of the URL for another > reason: the users understand it. For e

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Jeffrey W. Baker
On Wed, 10 May 2000, harm wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 03:36:38PM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: > > > > > > The cool thing about this is that relative links need not be rewritten at > > > all, the browser handles it! > > > > > > > I like to use session ids at the beginning of the URL f

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tobias Hoellrich
Rule #1: Never ever link directly to a remote site, but do it through a redirector which makes sure that nothing that doesn't have to be sent to the remote site gets sent to it. We use a handler that "listens" on /redirect turns urls like: /redirect/http://www.disney.com to the obvious

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread harm
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 04:15:29PM -0700, Tobias Hoellrich wrote: > Rule #1: Never ever link directly to a remote site, but do it through a > redirector which makes sure that nothing that doesn't have to be sent to > the remote site gets sent to it. We use a handler that "listens" on > /redirect t

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tobias Hoellrich
At 01:40 AM 5/10/00 +0200, harm wrote: > ... >It doesn`t clear the referer header! >Any suggestions for better redirection strategies? Generate a html file >whith qualifies as ugly ;-) > > Then I guess our solution qualifies as ugly - you can spit out as many 302's as you want, it won't increase

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Gunther Birznieks
You should be able to wrap the session creation inside an eval so that if the session has expired, your code doesn't break, it silently creates a new session behind the scenes. That's if you have this requirement. Later, Gunther At 04:50 PM 5/9/00 -0500, Jay Jacobs wrote: >On Tue, 9 May

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tom Mornini
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Tobias Hoellrich wrote: > and what happens when somebody bookmarks a URL with the session-id > prepended and comes back a week later with an invalid session-id in the URL? They get a screen that asks them to fix their bookmark, and shows them how. This is the only disadvantag

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Tom Mornini
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Drew Taylor wrote: > > This works on my site, because the urlspace is completely > > ficticious. There is no disk path /home/abcdef0987654321, in fact there > > is no /home, nor even a document root at all. I just threw in the /home > > to make the URL look a little more fri

Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-18 Thread Gustavo Henrique
At 19:26 09/05/00 -0700, Tom Mornini wrote: >On Tue, 9 May 2000, Tobias Hoellrich wrote: > >> and what happens when somebody bookmarks a URL with the session-id >> prepended and comes back a week later with an invalid session-id in the URL? > >They get a screen that asks them to fix their bookmark

RE: 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Leon Brocard
Rodney Broom: > I've been thinking for a while now on a "complete" state maintainance > system. Although it would be allot of writing, I think that a > system could be build that magically incorporates one or more of: > - magic numbers (or session IDs) > - cookies > - IP tracking > - special for

[OT] Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-09 Thread Eric Strovink
Stas, this thread is very interesting. Guide material?

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Jay Jacobs
So as I see it there are essentially 2 *mostly* reliable ways, cookies and url-rewriting. Both have drawbacks and neither are 100%. There really isn't a way to cross-reference anything else (IP or login) becuase there are valid reasons for a user to come from multiple ip addresses during a ses

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Roger Espel Llima
Jay Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So as I see it there are essentially 2 *mostly* reliable ways, cookies > and url-rewriting. Both have drawbacks and neither are 100%. There > really isn't a way to cross-reference anything else (IP or login) becuase > there are valid reasons for a user t

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Jay Jacobs
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Roger Espel Llima wrote: > Jay Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So as I see it there are essentially 2 *mostly* reliable ways, cookies > > and url-rewriting. Both have drawbacks and neither are 100%. There > > really isn't a way to cross-reference anything else (IP o

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Jay Jacobs
I embedded notes into this with a short book at the end... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote: > There is a strong reason for cookies only. Intranets and other controlled > environments. I'm trying to satisfy as many clents as possible in the chaos of the uncontrolled world of a pub

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Gunther Birznieks
At 01:21 PM 5/10/00 -0500, Jay Jacobs wrote: >I embedded notes into this with a short book at the end... > >On Wed, 10 May 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote: > > > There is a strong reason for cookies only. Intranets and other controlled > > environments. > > >I'm trying to satisfy as many clents as p

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-12 Thread Jay Jacobs
I really liked this solution... here is the simple mod_rewrite stuff I've stuck into my httpd.conf to pull out the session_id: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond /your/doc_root/%{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^/S=([^/]+)/(.*)/$2 [E=SESSION_ID:$1] When you set your session_id, be sure to prepen

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Matt Sergeant
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Jay Jacobs wrote: > So as I see it there are essentially 2 *mostly* reliable ways, cookies > and url-rewriting. Both have drawbacks and neither are 100%. There > really isn't a way to cross-reference anything else (IP or login) becuase > there are valid reasons for a user

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Robin Berjon
At 02:24 10/05/2000 -0500, Jay Jacobs wrote: > So as I see it there are essentially 2 *mostly* reliable ways, cookies >and url-rewriting. Both have drawbacks and neither are 100%. Well if it's *reliability* that you are looking for, url rewriting seems to come-accross as better. None of the fol

Re: [Summation] 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Gunther Birznieks
There is a strong reason for cookies only. Intranets and other controlled environments. You generally do not have to worry about the lack of cookies, and if a user does have them turned off in the organization, then you can mandate them to turn them on as corporate policy if they want to use t

Re: [OT] Re: 100% sessions?

2000-05-10 Thread Stas Bekman
> Stas, this thread is very interesting. Guide material? Yeah, sure. Someone would like to summarize things in a verbose form? Thanks a lot! __ Stas Bekman | JAm_pH--Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stas