>Chris, I'm not trying to be misleading at all. In fact, I'm trying to be the
>opposite. If you look over all the posts I've written on this, I've clearly
>said the request scope is NOT a shared scope (which is why it doesn't need
>to be locked). I was just trying to get the point across that request is NOT
>tied to a single user, unlike client and session.
Saying that it's not tied to a single user is the misleading part. A single HTTP
request cannot be shared by more than one user. Therefore, the request scope is (by
definition) tied to a single user.
How are you defining "tied"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
