Gerald Richter writes:
> > Ok, I have set it to NullLocker now and report what happens. What do I
> > loose if I'm using NullLocker instead of SysVSemaphoreLocker?
>
> You will run into problems if more then one Apache child tries to update the
> same session at the same time. That normaly should not happen within Embperl
> %udat, because you have one session per user/browser and the same browser
> should not request two embperl pages at the same time. (in contrast to
> %mdat)
>
> > Btw. I'm
> > not using %udat but Apache::Session (1.02) directly.
> >
>
> Then you should check if there could be any place where you don't release
> the Session object.
I have run NullLocker now for a while and it looks like the problem
with the session data still persists. It happens not as much as with
SysVSemaphoreLocker but is still observable. Maybe I have found one
more point of interest here:
Gerald suggested to check that the session object is really destroyed
which means that it should be saved. I checked this directly in
Apache::Session with a warning: I could observe no occasion where it
wouldn't be destroyed. Also when the case happened that session data
seems not to be changed I checked the session data field of the
session table in the data base. The interesting thing seems to be that
the data has changed in the database but somehow would not be
retrieved from the next page which still gets that old values.
Next thing is to switch from Apache::Session 1.02 to 1.03
Dirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
