Closed espen closed 8 years ago
@espen Nope, there wouldn't be any advantage at all. The CacheStore
only uses read
, write
, and delete
, so there aren't any more advanced or optimized calls that would be made. I'd happily accept a PR that mentioned using it as a session store.
For reference: one difference is that with most other cache stores you can add a prefix to the stored key. With CacheStore you can't add a prefix and it is namespaced with _session_id
in addition to the namespace defined in Readthis: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/930110b0452bd33e0ee54e9ec6d68e904ba7a0ad/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/session/cache_store.rb#L44
Can you give me an example of the cache keys you would like to see? The Rails CacheStore has a very small API and wouldn't take much, but I'd like to know exactly what you're aiming to achieve.
I think the Rails Session CacheStore should handle this. I started a discussion here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-core/kM7Bcrts3ME
Is there any advantage for this project to have its own ActionDispatch session store over the ActionDispatch::Session::CacheStore?
If not, perhaps it should be mentioned in readme.md that it's possible to use this gem for storing sessions?