I don't think he was saying it was incorrect. He was saying that he's okay with the added inconvenience if it makes everything work correctly.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:51 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would it (Igor's proposal) be not correct? > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Peter Ertl <pe...@gmx.org> wrote: >> in general I prefer correctness over convenience ... so if we need a context >> listener to do everything right so should it be (remember having the same >> kind of trouble with jetty) >> >> +0 >> >> Am 18.03.2011 um 17:50 schrieb Igor Vaynberg: >> >>> another possible solution is to serialize the page into SerializedPage >>> before sticking it into session...this may introduce some overhead, >>> especially for non-clustered apps. however, we can have a special >>> pagemanager for non-clustered apps that does not change page instances >>> into SerializedPage...kind of like HttpSessionStore works in 1.4 >>> compared to a store that uses DiskPageStore. >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:04 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, I was trying to understand the problem before posting random thoghts >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> SegFault commented the issue with this question: >>>>> >>>>>> " the only problem I see is that there is no one to clean the static >>>>>> org.apache.wicket.page.PersistentPageManager.managers" <= maybe a stupid >>>>> question, >>>>>> but how does this behave in case of many context reloading (for example >>>>> in developpement >>>>>> mode), is this cleaned up by container ? or this will end up with a >>>>> PermGen space error ? >>>>> >>>>> I think that, unless you hold references to webapp-specific classes in >>>>> server-loaded classes' static fields, or leave zombie threads, PermGen >>>>> shouldn't occur, and all classes should be gc'ed. Does the page >>>>> manager do anything that prevents it to be gc'ed? Does it need any >>>>> extra clean-up, besides being unloaded with the webapp classloader? >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that the web container first destroys WicketFilter and then >>>> goes to serialize/persist the session. >>>> Wicket puts Page instances in the session, but before serialization these >>>> Page instances are transformed to SerializedPage which is a struct of >>>> int pageId; >>>> String sessionId; >>>> byte[] data; // the page itself >>>> >>>> and to be able to transform them Wicket needs the configured IPageManager. >>>> With the destroy of WicketFilter all information is removed (null-ified) >>>> including the PageManager and thus the serialization fails. >>>> >>>> With the new ServletContextListener (SCL) we will move the application >>>> start >>>> and stop from the Filter to SCL and solve this problem. >>>> >>>> Additionally by Servlet specification the container may restart >>>> servlets/filters at any time without completely stopping the application, >>>> i.e. w/o >>>> calling >>>> javax.servlet.ServletContextListener.contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent). >>>> So the new way will improve the current behavior. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> i would say that the lack of response shows that people dont care >>>>>> about a couple more xml lines they have to add to web.xml once and >>>>>> forget about. >>>>>> >>>>>> -igor >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To solve https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3470 we need to >>>>>>>> introduce ServletContextListener in Wicket. >>>>>>>> In comment >>>>>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3470?focusedCommentId=13008166&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13008166Idescribed >>>>> a proposal how we can change web.xml configuration to make it >>>>>>>> working. The proposal is based on a discussion between me and Igor in >>>>> IRC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a rather big change and we need more opinions, so please share >>>>> if >>>>>>>> you have ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By "big" here I mean conceptually, not code wise. Technically it doesn't >>>>>>> seem to be big or complex. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --martin-g >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S. I'm interested to understand why there is no such problem with >>>>> Wicket >>>>>>>> 1.4? >>>>>>>> I guess sessions in 1.4 are cleared earlier and never persisted between >>>>> web >>>>>>>> container restarts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>>>>> jWeekend >>>>>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>>>>> http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>>>> jWeekend >>>>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>>>> http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Martin Grigorov >>>> jWeekend >>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>> http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/> >>>> >> >> >
