DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36541>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36541 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-08 18:14 ------- Bear in mind if you are using clustering, you have to put the modified session attribute after you have finished modifying the object and wish the new state to persist for the next request, as clutering replication only takes place at setAttribute() time. So the 1000:1 may only be realistic for those users. Also with the other issue of getting a null back when you expected to see an object. Session data does not stay around forever, it expires so all web-apps must deal with the no session situation. So I'd agree that so long as your servlet still holds the exact Session object instance you did a setAttribute() on you can reasonable expect a getAttribute() on it exist. But between requests you let go of the instance, and leave it upto the container session manager to hold onto. If as comment #44 implies you are talking minutes later, then I read into that you mean across requests. Well there is no garuntee your session still exists so your web-app must deal with that situation. But you should not need to deal with seeing an old overwritten value turn up again, that would be a problem. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
