That's actually part of what I'm saying. Right now, if you start a thread for AppA from a request in AppB, you are *not* using Application.get(). You *must* be passing the Application in some way to the thread. So, this doesn't break that functionality. What I was saying about what's "already broken" is if you are inadvertently starting a thread for AppA in a request from AppB, that's currently a bug, and nothing we're doing will either make that better or worse.
-- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:40 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > That's not an existing problem because the application threadlocal isn't > propagated to the pooled thread. > > On May 20, 2010 6:39 PM, "Jeremy Thomerson" <jer...@wickettraining.com> > wrote: > > You would only get an Application in a thread that was started from a > request thread. You wouldn't start a thread for AppB from a request in > AppA. The only chance of getting that cross-over would be if you started > threads in AppA that were later pooled for AppB - but that would be an > existing problem. > > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:22 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com > >wrote: > > > > What if someone has two applications running in the same webapp that > > are handling two different... >
