[Web-SIG] Re: Just lost another one to Rails

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
>At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning
>WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session
>library in WSGI, because the session library has no knowledge of
>anything in your application, not even a context object.

I don't understand why you think WSGI requires anything different.

Actually, most of the time I wonder why people think sessions should be 
implemented with WSGI middleware at all, as opposed to just using a 
library.  Each time, however, I eventually figure out that it's because 
they'd like responses affecting the session (e.g. Set-Cookie headers) to be 
done automatically, without the app needing to care about it.

Of course, management of the "session state" vs. management of the "session 
content" are largely orthogonal concerns that might be worth standardizing 
an interface between, so that you can mix and match session-state 
mechanisms (cookies, subdomains, paths, query string tags) with 
session-content mechanisms (files, database, shared memory, etc.).