--- Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 9/7/07, lightbulb432 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm reading some book concurrency books that talk
> about potential thread
> > safety issues with HttpSession. Specific cases
> follow:
> >
> > - When the web container passivates an HttpSession
> while a user's request
> > modifies it
> 
> strange use case. why should that happen?
> 

Yes, to me that would be a bug. I mean, if the server
were to be in the act of caching a dormant session out
to disk and out of memory when a request came in there
should be a lock in place, and then once it finished
doing so, the lock would be released, the session
would be brought back into memory, and all should be
well. If not, then it simply would not work and would
be bad coding...that is when you file a bug.

> > - When the web container replicates an HttpSession
> while a user's request
> > modifies it
> 
> Hmm.. Is it a real issue for you?
> 

Again, if it were doing so, same as the above issue.
If the server or infrastructure for clustering were
doing anything related to copying out to keep multiple
instances up to date I would expect concurrency to be
controlled at the server and cluster level, and if not
then it would simply be a bug. I don't see how it
could be anything else unless the clustering support
allowed you, in configurable instances, to tell it not
to be so rigid and allow access to these things even
when they may not yet be up to date. Then in this case
you would have to know your logic well enough to know
if it would be an issue or not, and would hope being
rigid would be the default.

> > - When multiple quick, successive requests from
> the same user access the
> > same HttpSession
> 
> No problem here, at least not with 2.5 compliant
> server.
> 

My other reply was specifically about this.

Wade

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to