On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu>wrote:
> > Hey Viktor :) > > What’s the overhead associated with this? Little? Much? > The overhead of many SessionVars version one? From a memory/cpu-perspective it's negligible (dang, how to spell that?). However, from a developer-perspective, it's far easier to keep the data consistent if you put it in a data structure of it's own (In the future, you might wish to persist it, and then the work is almost all done.). Cheers, Viktor > > Cheers, Tim > > > On 06/04/2009 13:17, "Viktor Klang" <viktor.kl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If the config is on a per-session basis, then SessionVar should be the way > to go. > But of course, put it in _one_ SessionVar, and not hundreds... :) > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Tim Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu> > wrote: > > > Guys, > > Im working on a system where by there is a bunch of configuration > options that should exist for a given application, and are application > wide... Im handling this right now in a similar way to LiftRules. > > However, I also have some configuration that can be done on a per > user / per session basis - what is the recommended strategy for > handling this without simply abusing the crap out of SessionVar? > > Cheers, Tim > > > > > > > > > > -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
