Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > > I'm running into an issue here with RequestLifecycle components. > > I want to > > write the handler and such, and we can assume one handler to one > > component definition (configuration, etc.). Right now the helper > > classes assume we have access to a Role. This is not the case. > > > > I believe we can simplify things a little, but we cannot assume we > > have acess to the role. I will let you know when I am done > with this > > issue, but if someone has any hints, help to offer, etc. > let me know. > > > If you need help, just let me know. > > I'm really thinking more and more that we simply should drop > RequestLifecycle and GlobalRequestLifecycle. Why? > > In most cases they are not used for the lifecycle of the > component but for the lifecycle of the data the component acts on. > You can achieve the same thing now by using the > o.a.c.components.persistence.RequestDataStore which is imho a > cleaner solution. > > Now, the advantage of the RequestLifecycleComponent is performance. > If you have several places during a request where this > component is used, only one instance of a RLC is used, which > means the data it acts on is only fetched once as well. > > If you use a Poolable component with the RequestDataStore, > this component is retrieved several times and several times > the data is fetched from the store. And exactly this last > point, fetching the data from the request is a little bit > more costly. Hmm. >
What about transactional components? I have a situation where I use a GRL to wrap a session fa�ade type object and rely on recycle() being called at the end of the request in order to commit/rollback work done. How would I achieve this without GRL lifecycle? -- Unico > *If* someone would start a vote on deprecating RLC in 2.1 now > and removing them from 2.2, my vote would be above 0. > > Carsten > > >
