That sounds like it's working correctly. You got a new empty session and a cookie for it. I don't think it's expected that you won't get a cookie if your session is empty.
So Rik, what's the point of getting a new empty session and cookie for it, instead of just a "negative" cookie (a set-cookie header with negative time)
Yeah you're right. It is probably better to put a "negative" cookie there if the session is non-existent/empty. I think I was going with a "that sounds like more code/more complexity than it's worth", but the privacy concerns (I've never cared about what cookies sites are throwing at me, for better or for worse) are fair enough I suppose.
and no session at all to waste space on the db? A smart session engine should probably not bother put any entries in the DB if the session is empty, but I take your point.
-- Rik Brown http://www.rikbrown.co.uk On Sunday, 3 March 2013 at 22:47, Punter wrote:
On 03/03/2013 05:55 PM, Rik Brown wrote:
That sounds like it's working correctly. You got a new empty session and a cookie for it. I don't think it's expected that you won't get a cookie if your session is empty.
So Rik, what's the point of getting a new empty session and cookie for it, instead of just a "negative" cookie (a set-cookie header with negative time) and no session at all to waste space on the db? _______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm (mailto:dancer-users@dancer.pm) http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users