Jon Stevens wrote:
> I feel that way as well, but others disagree. :-) I think we agreed that the
> wording would be changed to be something like this (this was my suggested
> wording):
>
> "In order to allow sessions to persist across class reloading within the
> container, it is highly advised that you should implement the Serializable
> interface. Otherwise, you risk the strong chance that the objects within
> your session will not exist after the classloader has been reloaded."
>
> I also believe that it should be documented that:
>
> "If an object is not serializable AND it implements the
> HttpSessionBindingListener interface, that the valueUnbound() method will be
> called before the object is poofed into oblivion."
Looks good, provided that persistency over reloads isn't mandatory.
Calling valueUnbound is only a partly solution, people will be
still complain 'where did my objects go' because if they don't
know about persistency matters, they probably won't register
the listener either.
I know that you are not the person who needs to be convinced
about that...
Rafal
--
Rafal Krzewski
Senior Internet Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
