this problem effects any webapp that uses the http session. usually
this is handled the following way

lets say you have two nodes A and B

when starting an upgrade node A is taken offline and all sessions are
migrated to B
node A is then upgraded and brought back up with the loadbalancer is
configured to only send new sessions to A while B is being "starved"
of new sessions. once all sessions on B are expired B is taken offline
and upgraded at which point it is returned into rotation.

-igor

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Douglas Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm.. yeah.. that even seems like it could not be fool proof.
>
> I.E. Wicket checks that components are serializable not Externalizable.
>
> I'm curious if anybody that is running wicket in a cluster has experienced 
> this, or how you deal with deploying changes to the signature of a component.
>
> D/
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 2:42 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> You can implement Externalizable and manage it all yourself.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Douglas Ferguson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> How do you prevent developers from renaming fields on components.
>>> That seems really dangerous.
>>>
>>> i.e. what seems like a simple refactor to correct a spelling mistake could 
>>> result in sessions not being deserialized.
>>>
>>> D/
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> not with java serialization afaik
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Douglas Ferguson
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I can't deal with removing fields or changing method 
>>>>> signatures/implementations?
>>>>>
>>>>> D/
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 2010, at 12:58 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> as long as all you do is add fields you are ok...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Douglas Ferguson
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> So as long as the serial I'd is the same the classlader won't care the
>>>>>>> fields don't match?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Douglas Ferguson
>>>>>>> 512-293-7279
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:37 PM, "Igor Vaynberg" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the wicket code we override serial ids to 1, you should do the same
>>>>>>>> in your code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Douglas Ferguson
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm  considering a 0 downtime deployment but am concerned with the
>>>>>>>>> amount of state in the wicket session.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the scenario that concerns me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) There are 2 tomcats running
>>>>>>>>> 2) A change is made to a serializable object and the serial version
>>>>>>>>> id is updated
>>>>>>>>> 3) 1 tomcat instance is taken down for updating
>>>>>>>>> 4) tomcat instance comes back up with new object and now tries to
>>>>>>>>> update state from other tomcat and the wicket session has a
>>>>>>>>> reference to the old version of the serializable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Douglas Ferguson
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Has anybody had success with wicket using tomcat's session
>>>>>>>>>>> replication?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> D/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to