On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Paul Speed wrote:

> I think the idea is that you'd byte compare on "commit" which ideally
> would happen at request boundaries.  So in this case a single request
> becomes a "transaction"... which indeed opens up its own issues, but
> no bigger than the ones that were always there.

Not good enough - when the request is completed the user already has the
page confirming his order ( and maybe the card was already charged :-).


> In fact, that's the same case that fails in _every_ scenario that
> doesn't involve full EJB-like transaction support.  As soon as you
> access one single piece of data that isn't covered by the
> transaction support, you lose some amount of failover recovery.

And what's worse, far too many people will not realize that, and
read the marketing stuff ( 'we support failover, session replication,
etc') and believe it is a magic solution.


> That being said, there may still be a place for a session-based
> distribution mechanism that can support load balancing, hot-swapping
> of tomcats, and basic failover.  It should definitely be an opt-in
> sort of thing though, ie: web apps that meet the restrictions can
> opt to setup tomcat to provide this feature.

I agree it would be nice to have a tool that can store objects with
fail-over, distribution, etc and using it as a _complement_ to the session
( maybe using the session id, expiration, etc ).

I don't think this tool can be used using only the current servlet
session API or that it should be used as a servlet session manager.

> distributed session environment.  I think that's a given.  Personally,
> I'm still trying to figure out if there are a large enough number
> of webapps that could be supported to make it worth the effort.
> (Heavy emphasis on effort.)

I'm more worried about the number of webapps that would be written
with the assumption that the session will be magically safe, instead
of using transactions/database/EJB/ or whatever storage API.


Costin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to