[OT] Apache::Session and Win32

[Rob Bloodgood <ro...@empire2.com>]

I had some work to do for my friend on a Win2K/IIS box (yes, NOT apache)
(yes, it made me shudder).  I decided to base the program on
CGI::Application, using Apache::Session to string things together.

Wow.

I tried Apache::Session::File, but after MUCH hair-pulling it seems that the
Lock mechanism is COMPLETELY hosed (things are either never locked or never
unlocked, or something...)

Then I tried Apache::Session::DB_File but I never EVER saw a db file
created.

Finally, after realizing that Lock'ing was where I was hurting, I tried
::Flex with a File store but Null locking (the app is low-traffic enough
that I may or may not survive that decision).   This was where I found out
that Directory => "C:/WINNT/Temp" is a bad idea.  I could never figure out
why, it just didn't work.

Finally, I created and used "C:/tmp/sessions" (again, with no locking), and
Viola!  I have sessions!

So my question is, what should I have done differently?  Is ::Lock::Null a
guarantee of corruption/explosion on the first day I get 10 hits?  Or is
DB_File the preferred choice but the PPM at Randy Kobes' repository broken
(hypothetical, I'm just throwing out maybe's)?

I managed to find a "working" solution but it was *NOT* worth the several
hours  it took, and still feels dirty.

Any suggestions welcome!

L8r,
Rob

P.S. If this is too OT for comfort, I can take this to email or whatever...
I just happen to know the highest concentration of Apache::Session users in
the world are people on THIS list.  Ask the questions where you MIGHT get an
answer, no? :-)

Re: [OT] Apache::Session and Win32

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

Rob Bloodgood wrote:

>I tried Apache::Session::File, but after MUCH hair-pulling it seems that the
>Lock mechanism is COMPLETELY hosed (things are either never locked or never
>unlocked, or something...)
>  
>

AFAIK, Win32 has no flock.

>Finally, after realizing that Lock'ing was where I was hurting, I tried
>::Flex with a File store but Null locking (the app is low-traffic enough
>that I may or may not survive that decision).
>

Null locking is fine with anything that can do atomic updates on its 
own, i.e. not with DB_File.

>So my question is, what should I have done differently?
>

You should probably use MySQL.  It runs fine on Win32.

>  Is ::Lock::Null a
>guarantee of corruption/explosion on the first day I get 10 hits?  
>

With a storage system that does atomic writes, corruption isn't an issue 
-- the lock is only to prevent lost updates.  Those are not really an 
issue in most session scenarios, where "last save wins" is typically 
good enough.  I can't remember if the File store uses the atomic rename 
trick or not.  If it doesn't, you could be in trouble with that. 
 DB_File definitely doesn't.  That leaves MySQL, which does atomic writes.

>I just happen to know the highest concentration of Apache::Session users in
>the world are people on THIS list.
>

There are many on perlmonks.org as well.

- Perrin