On Friday December 07, 2001 06:46 pm, Tavis Rudd wrote: > On Friday 07 December 2001 13:12, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > On Friday 07 December 2001 11:08 am, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > > > I'm taking a closer look at the implementation of > > > SessionDynamicStore. It looks like it actually checks the > > > filesystem on _every_ request, even if the session is in memory. > > > This would seem to slow it down considerably. > > > > > > That plus the concurrency issue and it looks like > > > SessionDynamicStore could stand a rewrite. > > > > It's other deficiency that I recall is that it's hard coded to > > FileStore. If someone had a SQL store, or something else, they > > might want dynamic to use that instead. > > Have a look at the DynamicSessionStore in the file I've attached. > It's just been rewired to handle Chuck's proposal. It's based on the > experimental code, but most of it should transfer across easily
I took a look. It doesn't seem to address the thread-safety concerns, and also I honestly don't see the point of using anything other than the File store as the secondary store for Dynamic. The nature of the Dynamic store prevents different copies of the appserver from sharing sessions anyway, so there wouldn't be much point to a SQL or ZODB secondary store... - Geoff _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
