Well,
Terracotta session replication is far more scalable, and easy to
manage the alternatives.
That said, Wicket has the disk-based solution which I do not
understand yet. So I can't say if Wicket is better w/ disk or with
TC, but my guess is with TC because you can then share more than just
Wicket state. You can do Hibernate 2nd level cache, EHCache, and
your own POJOs, all in the same impl.
So TC seems worth finishing up, no?
--Ari
On Jun 30, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Matej Knopp wrote:
Forgive me my ignorance :)
I'm just still not sure what benefits does clustering wicket
application with TC brings over regular session replication. And, is
it not possible to setup TC to acts just like regular session
replication (with serialization of modified session properties, etc.)
-Matej
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:19 PM, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Much appreciated!
richardwilko wrote:
It does kind of work, If you use that class on my blog and dont
have
references to pages inside all other pages then things will
probably be
fine, assuming that the httpsessionstore doesn't cause you any
problems.
Our site is currently running at ~4500 active clustered sessions : )
Having said that I am making progress with the new session store
and will
probably have a tested version by the end of the week, depending
on how
busy I am.
Richard
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Terracotta-
integration-tp18168616p18200240.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
