cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Unico Hommes" <>
Subject RE: RequestLifecycle components
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:56:07 GMT

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >
> > I'm running into an issue here with RequestLifecycle components.
> > I want to
> > write the handler and such, and we can assume one handler to one 
> > component definition (configuration, etc.).  Right now the helper 
> > classes assume we have access to a Role.  This is not the case.
> >
> > I believe we can simplify things a little, but we cannot assume we 
> > have acess to the role.  I will let you know when I am done 
> with this 
> > issue, but if someone has any hints, help to offer, etc. 
> let me know.
> >
> If you need help, just let me know.
> I'm really thinking more and more that we simply should drop 
> RequestLifecycle and GlobalRequestLifecycle. Why?
> In most cases they are not used for the lifecycle of the 
> component but for the lifecycle of the data the component acts on.
> You can achieve the same thing now by using the 
> o.a.c.components.persistence.RequestDataStore which is imho a 
> cleaner solution.
> Now, the advantage of the RequestLifecycleComponent is performance.
> If you have several places during a request where this 
> component is used, only one instance of a RLC is used, which 
> means the data it acts on is only fetched once as well.
> If you use a Poolable component with the RequestDataStore, 
> this component is retrieved several times and several times 
> the data is fetched from the store. And exactly this last 
> point, fetching the data from the request is a little bit 
> more costly. Hmm.

What about transactional components? I have a situation where I use a GRL to wrap a session
fa├žade type object and rely on recycle() being called at the end of the request in order
to commit/rollback work done. How would I achieve this without GRL lifecycle?

-- Unico

> *If* someone would start a vote on deprecating RLC in 2.1 now 
> and removing them from 2.2, my vote would be above 0.
> Carsten

View raw message