Skip to content

[Session] Non-native Session handlers #4227

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 10, 2012
Merged

Conversation

vicb
Copy link
Contributor

@vicb vicb commented May 8, 2012

A few item to discuss. Needs @Drak inputs.

  • 72d21c6 is trivial,
  • 0216e05 is about memcache(d) handlers
    • I don't think the handlers should configure the memcache(d) instances. Those instances are injected into the storage so they should already be confidured (this will be done in the CacheBundle when available)
    • A SW prefix has been added to the memcached handlers so that the same instance of memcached can be shared - you can still set the Memcached::OPT_PREFIX_KEY before injecting the memcached instance.
    • It was not possible to use an expiration > 30days before, see php.net
  • 788adfb is trivial (cleanup in the PDO handler)

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged 788adfb into e54f4e4).

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 9, 2012

Overall this PR looks good to me. Since Memcache/d objects are passed by DI anyway, there is no need to provide a way to configure the objects here.

However, I am not sure it's consistent to provide internal handling of the prefix/expire if we are saying the objects should be configured and injected - if we hand over all configuration to the injected objects, that's exactly what we should do. In the case of the Memcache handler there is no handling for prefix by the Memcache object that is why it's handled internally.

Unless there are some other technical consideration I've missed, I would also not expect the same Memcache/d object to be used in all use cases (e.g. session storage and database caching layer). I realise we are trying to unify things in one cache component, but I am not entirely convinced session storage would necessarily have to be part of that nor that "one object fits all" is practical or wise.

As far as I am aware, apart from default settings, memcache/memcached instances retain their own settings once configured so it's quite feasible to expect there might be a couple of differently configured instances in a complex system.

In summary, I would remove the $memcachedOptions config entirely from the MemcachedHander along with the associated prefix and time and let it all be configured by the injected Memcached instance.

@travisbot
Copy link

This pull request passes (merged 12e22c0 into e54f4e4).

@vicb
Copy link
Contributor Author

vicb commented May 10, 2012

@Drak thanks for your feeback.

About the prefix: it might be necessary to avoid collisions when you re-use the same instance of memcache/d. This is why the prefix is handled internally and not by memcached (it would be global and not serve the purpose then).

About the ttl:

  • memcache/d can not handle ttl > 30 days (they would consider the time as an absolute timestamp then) and this is why the PR always convert the ttl to an absolute ts (time() + $ttl)
  • Moreover I think that the ttl should be initialized by the Session: there is no reason why the ttl should be different from the gc_maxlifetime. I think this is out of the scope of this PR.

About sharing memcache/d instances: it will be possible but it does not mean that you have to, you still can use different instances if this suit your needs.

The tests have been improved.

If you are ok with the latest changes, this PR should be ready to be merged

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 10, 2012

@vicb - I think it's ok to merge now. You are right about the TTL since PHP will pass a maxlifetime not a timestamp, and since memcached varies how it treats $expire, it does need to be normalised in the handler. I'm not necessarily 100% convinced about the prefix, but I don't object. Nice work.

/cc @fabpot

fabpot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 10, 2012
Commits
-------

12e22c0 [Session] Memcache/d cleanup, test improvements
788adfb [Session] Pdo Handler cleanup
0216e05 [HttpFoundation][Session] Assume that memcache(d) instances are already configured
72d21c6 [HttpFoundation][Session] change possible replace() & set() for set only()

Discussion
----------

[Session] Non-native Session handlers

A few item to discuss. Needs @Drak inputs.

* 72d21c6 is trivial,
* 0216e05 is about memcache(d) handlers
    * I don't think the handlers should configure the memcache(d) instances. Those instances are injected into the storage so they should already be confidured (this will be done in the CacheBundle when available)
    * A SW prefix has been added to the memcached handlers so that the same instance of memcached can be shared - you can still set the `Memcached::OPT_PREFIX_KEY` before injecting the memcached instance.
    * It was not possible to use an expiration > 30days before, see [php.net](http://www.php.net/manual/en/memcached.expiration.php)
* 788adfb is trivial (cleanup in the PDO handler)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by travisbot at 2012-05-08T09:49:03Z

This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1274808) (merged 788adfb into e54f4e4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by drak at 2012-05-09T15:20:38Z

Overall this PR looks good to me. Since Memcache/d objects are passed by DI anyway, there is no need to provide a way to configure the objects here.

However, I am not sure it's consistent to provide internal handling of the prefix/expire if we are saying the objects should be configured and injected - if we hand over all configuration to the injected objects, that's exactly what we should do. In the case of the `Memcache` handler there is no handling for prefix by the Memcache object that is why it's handled internally.

Unless there are some other technical consideration I've missed, I would also not expect the same Memcache/d object to be used in all use cases (e.g. session storage and database caching layer).   I realise we are trying to unify things in one cache component, but I am not entirely convinced session storage would necessarily have to be part of that nor that "one object fits all" is practical or wise.

As far as I am aware, apart from default settings, memcache/memcached instances retain their own settings once configured so it's quite feasible to expect there might be a couple of differently configured instances in a complex system.

In summary, I would remove the `$memcachedOptions` config entirely from the `MemcachedHander` along with the associated prefix and time and let it all be configured by the injected `Memcached` instance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by travisbot at 2012-05-10T07:32:53Z

This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1293064) (merged 12e22c0 into e54f4e4).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by vicb at 2012-05-10T07:34:31Z

@Drak thanks for your feeback.

About the prefix: it might be necessary to avoid collisions when you re-use the same instance of `memcache/d`. This is why the prefix is handled internally and not by `memcached` (it would be global and not serve the purpose then).

About the ttl:

* `memcache/d` can not handle ttl > 30 days (they would consider the time as an absolute timestamp then) and this is why the PR always convert the ttl to an absolute ts (`time() + $ttl`)
* Moreover I think that the ttl should be initialized by the `Session`: there is no reason why the ttl should be different from the `gc_maxlifetime`. I think this is out of the scope of this PR.

About sharing `memcache/d ` instances: it will be possible but it does not mean that you have to, you still can use different instances if this suit your needs.

The tests have been improved.

If you are ok with the latest changes, this PR should be ready to be merged

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by drak at 2012-05-10T09:29:18Z

@vicb - I think it's ok to merge now. You are right about the TTL since PHP will pass a maxlifetime not a timestamp, and since memcached varies how it treats $expire, it does need to be normalised in the handler. I'm not necessarily 100% convinced about the prefix, but I don't object.  Nice work.

/cc @fabpot
@fabpot fabpot merged commit 12e22c0 into symfony:master May 10, 2012
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants