On Apr 12, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote: > After looking at the code, I see what you mean and the model seems > quite > generic and on the good way! > > Excuse me for my stupid ideas... wouldn't it be possible to do the > same for > the context?
You mean application context? If so then it doesn't mean anything since the application context is the same for the whole duration of the application. The ThreadLocal is only required for request/response and session since those are different per user (thus per thread). -Vincent > The idea is not to be forced to pass it to every call... Could > it be possible to create an abstract and generic mechanism that passes > context and one implementation would be ThreadLocal... And if later, > we > discover a strong problem, we could have another implementation... > > regards > Pascal > > > On 4/12/08, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Pascal, >> >> On Apr 12, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Pascal Voitot wrote: >> >>> Even if I can't say I'm an expert of XWiki yet, let me give my point >>> of >>> view... >>> The ThreadLocal is interesting but can bring lots of design >>> constraints >>> also... >>> Moreover, I think the stateless approach would be an insurance for >>> future >>> evolutions and passing the context seems better for that... >>> For example, I have been thinking about an XWiki engine using >>> service >>> oriented approach... without the Servlet model... A raw XWiki >>> service >>> provider without knowledge of its communication and presentation >>> layers... >>> Like this, it would be easy to imagine P2P, balancing, grid >>> computing etc... >>> To my mind, the component model goes in this way... >> >> Actually we're not bound to the Servlet model at all. If you check >> the >> container component in SNV you'll see that it's made to be generic >> with a first implementation for Servlet (in component-servlet). >> >> The only constraint is that whatever your development model you must >> provide an implementation of the Container API, i.e. implement the >> notion of request, response, session and application context. This is >> what we'll do for example in the scheduler or XMLRPC module. >> >> To be honest, I still need to finish this container component since I >> don't fully know yet how the correct implementation can be passed to >> the component needing the Container object. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>> >>> ThreadLocal and stateless approach may be compliant but I'm sure >>> about this >>> :) >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>> >>> On 4/12/08, rssh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:25:29 +0200, Vincent Massol wrote >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, may be this is not my question, but: I can imagine >>>> situation, where >>>> ThreadLocal approach will fail: it's when we do asynchronics call >>>> to some >>>> external entity with callback. In such case callback will not >>>> receive >>>> context in >>>> ThreadLocal. And it is possible (and very common approach) to do >>>> this >>>> from >>>> groovy scripts (as groovy has closures). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ruslan Shevchenko >>>> GradSoft. http://www.gradsoft.ua >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
