Camping and sessions proposal.

[Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov]

On 10-okt-2007, at 0:09, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
> ActiveRecord doesn't seem to handle
> hashid as an identifier, plus it doesn't seem to be fully consistent
> across the various RDBMS.
Only if you want to totally insist and not give it an ID then yes, it  
becomes a kind of a nuisance (your insistance is not
justified though, as I mentioned in the ticket) because an integer is  
actually quite big.
You gain little on the cleanness side, but you lose on the  
implementation and compatibility.

> On the other hand, the scope of the project
> does not permit to implement all kind of client persistence.
+1

> So here is what I propose : Camping will only provide an in-process
> session store with no real security built-in. See it as a hack-ready
> example that will allow you to make your internal apps work quickly
> (ak. no DB dependency).
-1
If we sooo want to dump the DB, why not use PStore? I think  
multiprocess sessions are a must. Be aware that the RAM is not  
rubberized either.
I like the implementation with load_state / save_state but I wonder:
a) in-mem sessions are nasty, please don't
b) how is that supposed to work with many applications on one server?  
which application decides which session driver is going to be used?

If you ask me, I'd say sessions should stay with the DB (also  
considering that people are using them and there are session records  
in the wild).
Give AR that ID and let it shut up :-)

-- 
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
please send all personal mail to
me at julik.nl