use a hash instead

[tj]

can't think of any immediate reason not to, it would be faster as well as less clutter, easier to manage etc

[maxrabin]

I was wondering why it wasn't implemented as a hash. Do you want help implementing this?

[tj]

hmm well we can't expire a hash entry, not sure why I didn't think of that before haha

[maxrabin]

What about the EXPIRE command?

We are running into problems with concurrent requests from a single client, the first request takes longer to process, the second one modifies the session, then the first one finishes and overwrites the session with the old data from before the second request. This would be solved with a hash where we only update individual fields at a time, when needed.

I'm going to begin implementation and if I get something backwards compatible and useful, I'll open a pull request. I imagine, though that I won't be able to because of migration issues between old style and new style sessions (string vs. hash) so maybe not.