You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> on 2009/06/18 15:03:02 UTC
Pluggable State Storage Mechanism...
All,
It would be great if we could make the conversational state storage
mechanism "pluggable" so that you could perhaps keep the memory
footprint of your conversational state at a minimum. What do you guys
think about that?
James
Re: Pluggable State Storage Mechanism...
Posted by James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Gurkan
Erdogdu<cg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK, Terracotta provides distributed cache for multiple nodes. And
> generally it is used for saving user sessions for fail-over scenarios. Does
> wicket use it for clustering page data?
>
Yes, there is terracotta support for wicket page state, so that it
replicates across nodes. Pretty slick from what I understand, but I
haven't had a chance to use it yet.
> Actually, we have not implemented the session related scenarios like
> activation/passivation of the sessions. For example, when container
> passivates session, passivation occurs and OWB will passivate all component
> instances that have passivated capable scope types (like session and
> conversation scopes). I think that this can be easily done by implementing
> the HttpSessionActiovationListener.
I would assume so, yes.
Re: Pluggable State Storage Mechanism...
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
AFAIK, Terracotta provides distributed cache for multiple nodes. And
generally it is used for saving user sessions for fail-over scenarios. Does
wicket use it for clustering page data?
Actually, we have not implemented the session related scenarios like
activation/passivation of the sessions. For example, when container
passivates session, passivation occurs and OWB will passivate all component
instances that have passivated capable scope types (like session and
conversation scopes). I think that this can be easily done by implementing
the HttpSessionActiovationListener.
Gurkan
2009/6/18 James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com>
> Understood. I don't want to get our "cart before our horse" here, but I
> did
> want to raise the idea. I think providing a Terracotta implementation
> might
> be wise (they did this for Wicket's page storage mechanism). You could
> even
> use ehcache, I would assume.
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdogdu@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > It is a good idea and it could be an OWB extension. Could you create a
> Jira
> > for this?
> >
> > But I think, firstly we have to adapt the last draft specification
> > requirements to our implementation :)
> >
> > Thanks;
> >
> > /Gurkan
> >
> > 2009/6/18 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > It would be great if we could make the conversational state storage
> > > mechanism "pluggable" so that you could perhaps keep the memory
> > > footprint of your conversational state at a minimum. What do you guys
> > > think about that?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gurkan Erdogdu
> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
> >
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
Re: Pluggable State Storage Mechanism...
Posted by James Carman <jc...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Understood. I don't want to get our "cart before our horse" here, but I did
want to raise the idea. I think providing a Terracotta implementation might
be wise (they did this for Wicket's page storage mechanism). You could even
use ehcache, I would assume.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It is a good idea and it could be an OWB extension. Could you create a Jira
> for this?
>
> But I think, firstly we have to adapt the last draft specification
> requirements to our implementation :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> /Gurkan
>
> 2009/6/18 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>
> > All,
> >
> > It would be great if we could make the conversational state storage
> > mechanism "pluggable" so that you could perhaps keep the memory
> > footprint of your conversational state at a minimum. What do you guys
> > think about that?
> >
> > James
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gurkan Erdogdu
> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
>
Re: Pluggable State Storage Mechanism...
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
It is a good idea and it could be an OWB extension. Could you create a Jira
for this?
But I think, firstly we have to adapt the last draft specification
requirements to our implementation :)
Thanks;
/Gurkan
2009/6/18 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> All,
>
> It would be great if we could make the conversational state storage
> mechanism "pluggable" so that you could perhaps keep the memory
> footprint of your conversational state at a minimum. What do you guys
> think about that?
>
> James
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com