> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Topping [mailto:topping@;digidemic.com] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:05 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:martin.cooper@;tumbleweed.com] > > Subject: RE: Unclear semantics on form use for "wizards" > > > > You have to decide where you want to be bitten. ;-) Yes, you > > may end up > > writing a bunch of hidden fields. But if you don't, then > > you're filling up > > valuable memory with session data, potentially reducing the > number of > > concurrent users your application can support. > > A half gig of memory cost $150 bucks. 512M = a quarter > million 2K HashSets. > If I can get a quarter million users onto a single Tomcat > instance, drinks > are on me. > > But the flipside is that's one hour of time with a good > programmer. I'm not > sure that the outrageous effort to robustly send hidden > fields back and forth > on the network is worth the effort, especially given security > considerations > to leaving session state on the client. I'd rather buy the > mems, tell the > programmers to use what they need, have the security of local > state, and have > an architecture that I can hire mere mortals to maintain in > the future.
The "outrageous effort"? Just automate it, and it becomes trivial. As Craig mentioned earlier in this thread, using session state also means you have to write code to somehow protect yourself from multiple simultaneous requests (e.g. from frames, or multiple browser windows). I'd say that's more effort (and much more difficult to do) than using hidden fields. -- Martin Cooper > > $0.02... > > -b > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
