Re: [cgiapp] Re: [OT] CGI::Session is good, but we can do better (a new project is born?)

[Ron Savage <suppressed>]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:43:38 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:

Hi Mark

> Conversely, I recently spent several /hours/ because of poor naming
> internal to CGI::Session. It uses ATIME, CTIME, and ETIME. The all
> lock very similar, and even the values look consistent because they
> are expressed in seconds. However, ETIME is a relative number of
> seconds, while the others are absolute values since the Epoch. I
> tried to improve this in PureSQL with columns named
> "last_access_time", "creation_time" and "duration", which what
> "ETIME" really is.

Yes. That's exactly the same problem I had every time I looked into CGI::Session 
when writing CGI::Session::ExpireSessions. But it's a mindset, just like when 
people write books - each book is (luckily) different.
-- 
Cheers
Ron Savage, suppressed on 18/06/2005
http://savage.net.au/index.html
Let the record show: Microsoft is not an Australian company



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed