>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2005 18:04
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [IMP] synchronization on session object in Cocoon
>
>
>Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
>>Sylvain Wallez <sylvain <at> apache.org> writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>Or more simply we could store the wrapper in the session 
>itself using an 
>>>attribute. That way it would be guaranteed to be created only once.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Yes, that's another possibility I also had in mind. But on 
>the one hand this
>>smells a bit (storing a wrapper in the object that the 
>wrapper wraps), on the
>>other hand you can not restrict access to it, so it can be 
>manipulated from
>>somewhere else. But the Map solution can indeed be very 
>resource consuming and a
>>bottle neck.

I am having second thoughts about the proposed solution.  If the Cocoon session 
is stored as parasitic session attribute, the container can no longer serialize 
it for persistance or cluster replication.  Not that one really needs to 
save/restore this particular attribute but it will cause nasty log messages at 
the very least.

I think now that a private WeakHashMap (to leave session timeout to the 
container) should be the preferred solution.

Cheers, Alfred.
 
 
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, 
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege 
is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, 
please notify the sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and 
any copies of it from your system. Please also immediately destroy any 
hardcopies of the message. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, 
distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended 
recipient. The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail 
communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this message are 
those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and 
the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of the sender's company.

Reply via email to