[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4873?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16247556#comment-16247556
 ] 

Michael Hum commented on WW-4873:
---------------------------------

[~yasser.zamani] Can definitely try that but I'm not 100% sure how that works 
with websphere or if we control when it tries to serialize the session. Will 
have to look into that.

I can try and play with it though. When would be a safe time to try and remove 
it do you think? I assume it needs to stay in there for as long as it takes for 
the interceptor to run across every potential request using the same session. 

> NotSerializableException - org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.StrutsRequestWrapper
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WW-4873
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-4873
>             Project: Struts 2
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.5.13
>            Reporter: Michael Hum
>             Fix For: 2.5.x
>
>
> We are attempting to test session replication on our websphere servers but 
> run into the given error when websphere tries to serialize the session. 
> {code}
> [10/18/17 10:33:38:094 EDT] 00000335 WASSession    E MTMBuffWrapper getBytes 
> write object exception. e= java.io.NotSerializableException: 
> org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.StrutsRequestWrapper
> {code}
> It appears the ActionInvocation stores the ActionContext which stores the 
> offending property: com.opensymphony.xwork2.dispatcher.HttpServletRequest --> 
> StrutsRequestWrapper 
> After a little digging we narrowed it down to our use of the 
> TokenSessionStoreInterceptor which stores the value in the session and uses 
> it to redirect the failed request to the original one. Is this 
> intended/expected? Or is there no requirement that the contents in the 
> session be serializable - in which case we would have to look to our own 
> solution.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to