Hi,

As far as I know the session replication supporting code is the same since
Wicket 1.4.1 (or 1.4.2).

The Wicket Session object is saved as an attribute in the HttpSession. The
HttpSession is replicated by Tomcat itself. What is your Tomcat config
related to replication ?
Do you use sticky sessions ? It seems you don't but I have to ask.

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Wayne W <waynemailingli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we recently migrated to 6.17 from 4.x. Something we are now experiencing is
> an odd session problem in production.
>
> We have 2 tomcats load balance running the front end wicket code. We have a
> certain flow that goes like this:
>
>
>    1. User goes to : my.example.com/login (LoginPage.java)
>    2. They log in
>    3. We invalidate the session and do a redirect to :
> foo.example.com/login
>    passing some parameters
>    4. In the constructor of LoginPage we verify the parameters and if valid
>    setup up the new current session with the user's details
>    5. LoginPage then does
>    a setResponsePage(Application.get().getHomePage());
>
> This on a single node/machine/instance of tomcat works great and with
> Wicket 4 it also worked great in a 2 node/instance load balanced situation
> however we have a problem.
>
> Problem:
> If at step 3 the redirect gets load balances to a different instance of
> tomcat, step 4 works fine (the request is read the the new session is got
> and the user info set on it). But this is when it gets really odd. Step 5
> is executed fine, but when the home page is constructed
> our MetaDataRoleAuthorizationStrategy.isInstantiationAuthorized()  is
> called as normal, and when we check the session to see if the users details
> are ok, there is no user in the session at all and we have a different
> session !
>
> Any ideas at all what is happening here? Did something change around the
> session handling? I'm wondering if its something to do with the 302
> redirect to the new URL with parameters?
>
> many thanks
>

Reply via email to