Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of michael.neale@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.232 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=mOBGNqIuPAYSgskYfcoWnuxRp6xqAeF5YqoMX9AgOwKob9Q55sKt+VuFIneqEErjcb0lnVG1SIC110mK94KFSzkTVZnjw9I7rrbqGT8SgyzlggF8stllZ/LX0RiRAnpPHGBWKWlcPVxm6DorEUUJEaFwS1CMDzTgaAHe2v2Dbyk=
Message-ID: <96ab3ced0609081355n4d4dc8abib54c57c97f675579@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 21:55:41 +0100
From: "Michael Neale" <michael.neale@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Session & Session
In-Reply-To: <fcbb46050609081016q576a45v60395cff012d0949@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_95685_2822464.1157748941228"
References: <96ab3ced0609080953j552e031bp553bcd907f77ea75@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fcbb46050609081016q576a45v60395cff012d0949@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_95685_2822464.1157748941228
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Nico. Is isn't really serialization per se, its more that to stuff it in
a http session it is expected to be serializable.

In my case, I would simply like to keep the Session around for a little
while in a servlet container.

On 9/8/06, Nicolas <ntoper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Why is Session not serializable? Is there a specific reason we didn't
> implement Serializable?
>
> It depends: what is the expected behavior of the user (read, write,
> read/write,...)?
>
> BR
> Nico
> my blog! http://www.deviant-abstraction.net !!
>
> On 9/8/06, Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All.
> >
> > This may (hopefully) have an obvious answer, but I was planning on
> putting
> > a
> > JCR Session in a server side (HTTP)session - for the duration of the
> users
> > interaction with the app.
> >
> > a) is this a good/bad idea? (I don't have to worry about a massive
> number
> > of
> > concurrent users)
> > b) Session is not serializable - so this may cause some issues with some
> > containers (I believe I can work around that anyway).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Michael.
> >
> >
>
>

------=_Part_95685_2822464.1157748941228--