Excellent stuff. Going to give this a whirl now. I updated to an Application.cfc on the blogs today. A bit messy at first, but that's running smoothly now.
If I can't replicate sessions, I may just have to stick the blogs back under the same instance. The main reason for separating them was to spread the load somewhat and have it so one instance could still be running if something went wrong with the other one. It's not a major deal though and I'd rather have logins working across these subdomains. Thanks for looking into it in such detail. Much appreciated ;) ! On Dec 7, 3:03 pm, "charlie arehart" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep, sorry. They do mean about the same thing in my mind, but I should have > been more > accurate in my quote. :-) > > As for storing sessions in other than memory, I'll note as well that that is > again > something that the J2EE servers all offer. Even JRun has it, but it's not > exposed by > CF. One could find the underlying xml entries to tell it also to store > session data to > files, for instance. Some J2EE servers also support storing them in a > database. I > think it may be precluded in the Server deployment but should be fully > supported in > the Multiserver deployment, since that's pure JRun. > > Anyway, not disagreeing that Railo may have something else that CF doesn't > (and to be > clear, CF doesn't expose alternative session storage in the interface). Was > just > curious what you were thinking of. Thanks. > > /charlie > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > MrBuzzy > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Handling sessions across subdomains > > I didn't say remnant I said artifact, maybe they mean the same thing :) > > Agreed it's an artifact of the J2EE spec and server (in this case JRun). > > Re: Railo, it has some cool mechanisms to store session data centrally or > distributed > for example you can use EHCache. I'm just recalling some of the presentations > at > cfoanz. I've never done it but it make sense and seems like an alternative to > using > 'replication' between CF instances which seems to use multicasting and rmi > etc and is > dependant on JRun or Tomcat or whatever. > > Sent from my iPhone -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
