> > This is just an idea from the top of my head, would
> > it be possible
> > having a second vector that contains a footprint(not
> > a full clone) of
> > the
> > object for a session and have a reaper thread
> > checking the footprints
> > against
> > the "real" objects and determine if they changed or
> > not and based on
> > that
> > replicate of whatever we want to do.
>
> My thoughts exactly. If you want to be able to
> support transparent fail-over for sessions within a
> cluster, you are going to have to take the performance
> hit of persisting the session data on at least 1 other
> machine in the cluster after every request. If you're
> already taking that step, you might as well maintain
> an in-memory image of the serialized session object.
> You could compare an MD5 on the bytes comprising the
> session before the request was handled with the MD5
> for after the request completed.
>
> Could this work?
The overhead could be fairly signifigant.
>
> - osama.
