Of course we'd like to see this also in WebWork 2.0, so please be sure to set the fix-for version to both branches :)
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hani Suleiman Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] SessionMap work All these proposals sound good to me, but changing the clear() behaviour is slightly non-backward compatible, so I'd like to hear from people who strongly object to this modification because it'd make their lives unbearable etc etc. On Dec 16, 2003, at 6:32 PM, Robert Dawson wrote: > After running into some pain with SessionMap on a project a while ago, > I > have been looking into trying to get it into shape. > > I have been focussing on the 1.x codebase, because it is what I get > the most > benefit. I'm looking to get some feedback on some of the changes I am > looking at before cutting the code. > > There are three things that I can see that are worth looking at: > > 1) put violates the map contract > -- put should return the value of the previous key. > (see WW-428 for fix) > > 2) Serialization on the Session -- having a map that does serialization > seems wrong when there is Collections.getSerializedMap(Map map, Object > mutex) > > 3) Session.clear() invalidates the session (WW-424). > I can understand the motivation for this, but it too breaks normal Map > behaviour. > > I can see a number of possible improvements to 3 > -- if the map took in a request in the constructor it could use > getSession where appropriate > -- Clear could removeAttributes instead of invalidating the > session. > -- The Exceptions could be caught and handled cleaner. > > I would see that the nicest solution would be some variation of the > first > suggestion. This would keep the invalidation behaviour as it stands, > and > make the map work in cleaner way. > > Sergiy has also raised WW-413 which talks about a difference between > SessionMap and HashMap. I notice that Pat has entered fix versions for > 1.4.1 and 2 on this, but I don't actually see the fix for this. (Not > that > it's really a big one). > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 02/12/2003 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. > Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for > IBM's > Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys > admin. > Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
