Turns out it's completely unrelated. But still needed :) Tristan
On 21/04/2016 10:18, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > On a related aspect, > > could this context object also hold security-related information ? > Currently the "lightweight" security uses a ThreadLocal to avoid going > through the AccessControlContext (which, is painfully slow), but I'd > prefer a "context" approach. > > Tristan > > On 21/04/2016 10:07, Galder Zamarreño wrote: >> Hey guys, >> >> Just a quick heads up about [1]. >> >> As I was looking at the marshalling code in core, I spotted the work done >> for [2] and by extension [3]. >> >> I can certainly see the practicality of Will's solution in [2] which fitted >> quite well with the current marshalling architecture, but as we rethink the >> entire marshalling layer in [1], I'm wondering if a context-object where we >> can track repeated fields like Strings, Addresses... would be more suitable. >> For starters, we'd get rid of thread locals and could be more easily exposed >> in other places. >> >> Any ideas or updates you have on the topic please let me know. >> >> Cheers, >> >> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-6498 >> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4979 >> [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2133 >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Infinispan, Red Hat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> > -- Tristan Tarrant Infinispan Lead JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
