Hey guys,
Just a quick heads up about [1].
As I was looking at the marshalling code in core, I spotted the work done for
[2] and by extension [3].
I can certainly see the practicality of Will's solution in [2] which fitted
quite well with the current marshalling architecture, but as we rethink
On a related aspect,
could this context object also hold security-related information ?
Currently the "lightweight" security uses a ThreadLocal to avoid going
through the AccessControlContext (which, is painfully slow), but I'd
prefer a "context" approach.
Tristan
On 21/04/2016 10:07, Galder
For example, I'd like to get some clarification on the scope of the context
object:
@Will, will the solution you provided in [2] deal with multiple JGroups
marshalling request callbacks? Or is it only designed for a single marshalling
request callback coming from JGroups tgat contains a CacheSt
Hey Galder,
these "scopes" you mention sound cool, but I'm afraid you'd end up
designing a user friendly API more than allowing the level of
performance optimisations we need.
If we pass a "context" map, or eventually make it a map of maps when
you'll figure you have nested structures such as [obj
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:35 AM Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> For example, I'd like to get some clarification on the scope of the
> context object:
>
> @Will, will the solution you provided in [2] deal with multiple JGroups
> marshalling request callbacks? Or is it only designed for a single
> marsha
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:56 AM Sanne Grinovero
wrote:
> Hey Galder,
> these "scopes" you mention sound cool, but I'm afraid you'd end up
> designing a user friendly API more than allowing the level of
> performance optimisations we need.
>
> If we pass a "context" map, or eventually make it a ma
Turns out it's completely unrelated. But still needed :)
Tristan
On 21/04/2016 10:18, Tristan Tarrant wrote:
> On a related aspect,
>
> could this context object also hold security-related information ?
> Currently the "lightweight" security uses a ThreadLocal to avoid going
> through the AccessC
