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

[Shannon -jj Behrens]

I think we're violently agreeing.

-jj

On 4/29/05, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> 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.).
> 
> 


-- 
I have decided to switch to Gmail, but messages to my Yahoo account will
still get through.