On Jan 8, 2008 3:25 PM, Andrea K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > shared sessions are used only for readonly requests. I shared them because > of their use. > It's a web application and requests are various and from various points > inside app. > So, many logins and logouts are frequently done, and that the point that > made me decide to > share sessions. Also various forum posts talk about this appointing to > divide readonly session > from write sessions. Consequently, write operations are managed from another > web applications and use their own sessions. Nothing is shared when writing. > > Any critique is appreciated! > > BR, > Andrea - >
Thanks for the clarifications Andrea. As I've said with read only sessions your approach makes a bit more sense (and probably I got confused by the synchronized word used in your initial email). According to your comment, it is the numerous session login/logout that you've tried to address when sharing the session. But, as far as I can say: with the pool you login only once per each session available in the pool (and logout only when you restart the app), so this cost is completely eliminated. Now, imo it all boils down to correctly sizing the pool. As I have researched myself in old versions sharing a read only session between threads is safe, but as you probably know this is not guaranteed, so your company should be aware that upon an upgrade the whole thing may break. I am using a single session shared between multiple threads myself, and I have warnings everywhere in my app for this (and due to this and a couple of other dependencies I'm still stuck with a quite old version). ./alex -- .w( the_mindstorm )p. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Shared-session-pool-tp14486499p14689371.html > > Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
