Hi! Sorry for jumping to this discussion, but I am a little bit confused by the comments (not those regarding Jackrabbit particular implementation). My understanding till this moment is that Session creation is not an expensive operation and so it is safe to open/close a session for each user. Moreover, in case the Session-s are mostly used in terms of read-only opperations I really don't see how my understanding would be contradicted. I feel that it is more dangerous the start to use Session in synchronized mode.
As a quick note, my understanding (and not only mine, because I discussed this with different people working/involved with JCR in the past) is that JCR Session is somehow very similar to Hibernate Session. Is my understanding/expectation completely wrong? If yes, than why? ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. --- (http://themindstorms.blogspot.com) On 6/29/06, Stefan Guggisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/06, Ramachandra Sankuratri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > If it has to support *read and write access* for multiple users, does > this mean that a new session has to be created for each user? yes, unless you synchronize the access to the shared Session and all dependant objects (Workspace, Node, Property etc.). note that this is not a jackrabbit-specific limitation; see "7.5 Thread-Safety Requirements" of the jsr 170 spec: <quote> As a consequence, an application which concurrently or sequentially operates against objects having affinity to a particular Session through more than one thread must provide synchronization sufficient to ensure no more than one thread concurrently operates against that Session and changes made by one thread are visible to other threads. </quote> cheers stefan > > Thanks > Chandu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Guggisberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Newbie Question - Performance > > On 6/28/06, Vijay Pandey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am planning to use Jackrabbit and for a great # of users we only > need to > > provide read only access and i was reading on the wiki section abvout > > performance, it says that > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > it's a good practice to share a single anonymous session for read > only > > access if possible, it would reduce the time that write actions will > take. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Does it mean to say that 'session' is thread safe at method level for > read > > only operations , or do we have to synchronize the call on session? or > do > > you think should we have a pool of read only sessions ? > > you can assume that Session (at least the jackrabbit implementation) > is thread-safe if it is used for *reading only*. > > cheers > stefan > > > > > Thanks > > Vijay > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal > and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is privileged > and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. > >
