chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Florent Guillaume>
Subject Re: OpenCMIS: should Session extend Serializable?
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:14:18 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes that would probably work.
The responsibility for who will be closing the connection when it's
been restablished during deserialization is a bit muddy, but that's
another concern.

So if there's really a need to have Session be Serializable again, I
won't vote against it.


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Peter Monks <> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification Florent.
> Question for you - if Session was Serializable, couldn't org.nuxeo.ecm.core.opencmis.impl.client.NuxeoSession
hold a transient reference to the non-serializable objects, with the "connection" re-estalished
automatically post-deserialization?  Presumably this would require some serialization of
the session parameters, but generally speaking those are fairly small / lightweight.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:11 am, Florent Guillaume wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> FYI, here's an example of non-Serializable Session implementation:
>> Nuxeo plugins can use OpenCMIS APIs directly in same-JVM mode (without
>> a networking layer being invoked), using
>> org.nuxeo.ecm.core.opencmis.impl.client.NuxeoSession. This
>> implementation of Session holds (indirectly) a reference to a
>> non-Serializable low-level connection-like object (think
>> java.sql.Connection), that by definition is not Serializable.
>> Florent
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Peter Monks <> wrote:
>>> Thanks Florian.  I'm still a little confused though - if Session is not Serializable,
how can I rely on an arbitrary Session implementation class being Serializable?  What if
someone configures my client to use one of these non-Chemistry Session implementations?
>>> Possible workarounds include:
>>> Checking whether the implementation class is an instanceof Serializable, and
not caching it if it isn't (which implies poor performance for Session implementations that
aren't serializable)
>>> Wrapping Session in a Serializable wrapper that has a transient reference to
the Session (Session will be cached as long as it's kept in memory by the JVM - as soon as
the cache serializes a Session for whatever reason, that Session will effectively become decached
and incur the creation cost next time that user does something that requires CMIS)
>>> In the specific client I'm working on right now I can live with either workaround,
but in general (and imho) they are both quite undesirable given that this is likely to be
a common use case.  I notice for example that the Liferay guys identified a need for Session
caching in their "CMIS Document Library" implementation (see [1], in particular the comments).
 We can probably assume that either the Liferay cache doesn't require items to be Serializable,
or they worked around it in something like one of the two ways described above.
>>> Thinking along different lines for a moment - why does creating a Session have
to hit the CMIS server at all - is it to validate the username and password?  If so, is it
worth delaying that check until the first "real" CMIS call, thereby significantly reducing
the cost of establishing a Session (i.e. by eliminating any RPCs to the CMIS server at Session
creation time)?  This could even be configured via a flag to the SessionFactory to preserve
backwards compatibility.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>> [1]
>>> On Jun 2, 2011, at 2:26 am, Florian Müller wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> We had some discussions about that in the past. There are actually other
implementations of the OpenCMIS interfaces (not part of Apache Chemistry) that can not and
need not be serializable. We don't want to force them to do something crazy just to implement
the OpenCMIS interfaces.
>>>> The OpenCMIS classes have been designed to be serializable from the start
to support HTTP sessions. Casting to Serializable is safe now and will be safe in the future
-- even though it might feel weird.
>>>> What surprises me is that creating a session takes several seconds. Connecting
to a Alfresco server on a local network takes about 100ms. If it takes significantly longer
then there is something wrong...
>>>> Florian
>>>> On 01/06/2011 23:35, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>> G'day everyone,
>>>>> Creating an org.apache.chemistry.opencmis.client.api.Session is quite
an expensive operation (it typically takes several seconds), so I'm looking to cache Session
objects in a per-user cache in my client app so that I don't have to recreate Sessions for
every single interaction with the CMIS server.
>>>>> Unfortunately the cache library I'm using requires that cached objects
implement, which Session does not.  However the default implementation
class (org.apache.chemistry.opencmis.client.runtime.SessionImpl) does in fact implement Serializable,
allowing me the workaround of casting the Session object to Serializable prior to adding to
the cache.  I'm not particularly comfortable with this approach however, given that this
seems to be an implementation detail and not officially part of the contract for Sessions.
>>>>> Is there a compelling reason that Session doesn't implement Serializable?
 Is this something that could be added (noting that this change is backwards compatible)?
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Peter
>> --
>> Florent Guillaume, Director of R&D, Nuxeo
>> Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
>>   +33 1 40 33 79 87

Florent Guillaume, Director of R&D, Nuxeo
Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)   +33 1 40 33 79 87

View raw message