On Aug 18, 5:05 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You set whether you want a shared server, or dedicated/various speeds.
> In any case, is there room to entertain the thought of at some point adding
> support in Lift to propogate sessions across instances? (Is it easier now
> that it's been decoupled from servlets?)
No it is not easier. The fundamental problem in distributing lift
sessions is the bound functions. Sure, functions are serializable but
their references may not be. For instance one can bind an ajax
anonymous function and that functions can have a bunch of other
references inside potentially other lambdas etc. Viktor was doing in
the past some research to integrate with Terracotta but there were
some issues. So consistently distributing Lift sessions in a clustered
environment is a challenge but of course good ideas are more then
welcome.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Ryan Donahue<donahu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is anybody using Stax for anything more than prototyping or examples?
> If so, what has your experience been? Stax doesn't seem to fit lift
> very well, but I'd like to find out I'm wrong. Specifically, it does
> not support sticky
> sessions:http://developer.stax.net/forum/topics/initial-questions.
> I assume a Stax app shares resources with others on the same server,
> so you'd likely need to scale to additional servers sooner than
> normal. However, the lack of sticky sessions effectively caps a
> stateful lift app to one server.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
