Skip to content

Feature to handle Deletion/Expiration in ReactiveRedisSessionRepository similar to RedisIndexedSessionRepository #2049

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
anrajamani13 opened this issue Mar 30, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged type: enhancement A general enhancement

Comments

@anrajamani13
Copy link

Context
Feature similar requested in [ReactiveRedisSessionRepository as similar to RedisIndexedSessionRepository (Expiration of keys to be handled in Spring framework instead of Redis expiry)

Motivation:
In Redis, there is no hard rule, that key will gets deleted once the TTL is expired, as expiration runs in a separate background thread, which is of least priority.

This scenario is handled in spring as part of RedisIndexedSessionRepository (3 keys gets created as part of session)
1)spring:session:sessions:33fdd1b6-b496-4b33-9f7d-df96679d32fe
2)spring:session:sessions:expires:33fdd1b6-b496-4b33-9f7d-df96679d32fe
3)spring:session:expirations1439245080000
With the help of keys 2 and 3 and its TTL, Spring-session framework decides, spring:session:sessions:33fdd1b6-b496-4b33-9f7d-df96679d32fe to. be accessed or deleted``` and deltion is taken care as part of scheduled cron job

Where as in case of ReactiveRedisSessionRepository, there is no such feature. Seems like expiration is completely handed over to redis.

Is there any reason/motivation behind, for not having this feature present in ReactiveRedisRepository as its good to have from session mgmt.

@anrajamani13 anrajamani13 added status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged type: enhancement A general enhancement labels Mar 30, 2022
@anrajamani13
Copy link
Author

Any update on this?

@HJK181
Copy link

HJK181 commented Jan 30, 2023

A feedback after almost a year would be nice.

@marcusdacoregio
Copy link
Contributor

Hi folks, I'm looking into prioritizing #914 for 3.3. Probably the first two implementations would be based on R2DBC #1748 and Redis

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants