jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dolan, Kelly" <kdo...@inmedius.com>
Subject RE: Session object reuse?
Date Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:45:22 GMT
Thanks Justin!  We were thinking ThreadLocal. Did you mean to say "does NOT do a Session.save()"?
 Also, would a Session.refresh(false) clear the *new* property value in that case? So for
example, on call of an API, get our session object, call refresh(false), then perform the


-----Original Message-----
From: justinedelson@gmail.com [mailto:justinedelson@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Justin Edelson
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:13 AM
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Session object reuse?

Hi Kelly,
It sounds like you should be scoping your Sessions at the transaction, not the API level.
Since you can't refactor the API, a ThreadLocal would probably be the next best option.

One significant issue which can arise from sharing Sessions between transactions is that leftovers
(for lack of a better term) from the first transaction are seen in the second transaction.
For example, if an API call sets a property via its Session and then does do a Session.save(),
the next API call will see the *new* property value, which probably isn't what you want.


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dolan, Kelly <kdolan@inmedius.com> wrote:
> Help! Is there any reason Session objects should not or cannot be 
> reused? If so, why? (Time is of the essence so I appreciate quick 
> responses.)
> From the Jackrabbit documentation, we know Session objects are not 
> thread-safe so we'd need to guard against this (we're thinking of 
> associating a session w/ each thread in the thread pool). It also says 
> its good practice to release resources, especially JCR sessions. But 
> ours are constantly in use and constantly created/destroyed. Our 
> biggest concern is if data would be corrupted/stale because logout() 
> is not called on a session object that participated in a transaction.
> We are having performance problems, we need to quickly make some 
> minor/low risk changes that can improve performance, and this is one 
> change we are considering. We are currently using Jackrabbit 2.6.3. 
> Our application architecture encapsulates Jackrabbit behind an 
> interface that defines fine-grained APIs. Currently, on call of each 
> API we login and create a new Session object (always w/ the same 
> credentials), perform the function and then logout. The cost of the 
> login/logout calls is significant when considering the APIs are called 
> many times for one user operation (which is performed w/in a 
> transaction). We plan to look at refactoring the APIs for the long term but this is just
not possible at this time.
> Many, many thanks for guidance.
> Kelly
> --
> Kelly E. Dolan, Software Architect
> Inmedius, a Boeing Company | www.inmedius.com
> P: 412-459-0310 x211 | F: 412-459-0311

View raw message