[Web-SIG] Re: Just lost another one to Rails
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Apr 29 23:05:54 CEST 2005
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.).
More information about the Web-SIG