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 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

http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users