Hi Vincent, I recently had an issue with 2 in the following context:
- the framework, in this case exo, expects the container in ThreadLocal - the component we wished to integrate (a webapp) relied upon its own thread management for some lower level processing part of which needs to call the exo platform through an adapter We initially did not know that the framework depended on this, but after some exchanges with the exo team we tried the approach they use in their exo applications which is to setup the ThreadLocal with a servlet filter. This did not work because of course the adapter thread did not have its ThreadLocal setup. We finally ended up putting the setup code in the adapter thread, because in this case it was the only point of interaction with exo, but there could have been other points of interaction, and so its not a general solution. So in conclusion, my experience is that the technique really needs to be well documented, especially if wiki level scripting or plugins may need this type of callback behavior to the xwiki framework through other frameworks that manage their own threads. P.S. Didn't know about InheritedThreadLocal, sounds cool. Luis On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > In the new xwiki architecture we need to take a call for passing the > request, response and session around (what is currently called the > XWikiContext). We have 2 solutions: > 1) we pass it around for all method calls as it's currently done > 2) we use ThreadLocal(s). If you don't know what it is see for ex: > http://crazybob.org/2006/07/hard-core-java-threadlocal.html > . > > The advantage of solution 2) is that any component in the new > architecture can decide to have the Container component injected (see > http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/xwiki-platform/core/trunk/xwiki-containers/) > and thus be allowed to access the request, response and session > objects without having all its method add a Container object passed to > it. > > The downside of solution 2) is simply that we associate Unit Of Work > with Threads. But since we use a Servlet model and since I don't see > any foreseeable future where we would want to use several threads for > the same unit of work, I don't think this is limitating for us. See > http://blog.objectmentor.com/articles/2007/09/04/thread-local-a-convenient-abomination > for some explanation on this. > > So right now and even though ThreadLocal sound a little bit "hackish", > I think this is still my preference as it'll save us from having to > pass Container objects everywhere. > > Since this is an important architecture decision I wanted to have a > vote for it. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Luis Arias +33 6 14 20 87 93 skype : kaaloo _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
