On 6/6/07, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/6/07, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's persistence processes where we should find strategies to improve > > > performance/scalability by reducing serialization cost. > > > > > > Yep, the flyweight pattern <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FlyweightPattern> > would > > be most efficient here (also suggested by Matthieu in different words) > > That only works if you have a finite number of states. Don't we have a finite number of persistent states for a given process definition, without taking into account variables+partnerlinks?
In theory, if you don't use event handlers and never store any non-variable data. ActivityRecovery definitely violates the second principle, introducing infinite number of states after failure. It becomes worse if you want to inspect the process state directly, then you need activity start/end times, loop counters, etc. Assaf alex
