Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20830 invoked by uid 500); 7 May 2001 21:16:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20779 invoked by uid 1059); 7 May 2001 21:16:56 -0000 Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:16:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Craig R. McClanahan" X-Sender: craigmcc@localhost To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL Tomcat 4.x] Cluster In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010507231636.024b6b20@pop3.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 7 May 2001, Kief Morris wrote: > Craig R. McClanahan typed the following on 11:18 AM 5/7/2001 -0700 > >An interesting question is, how do you detect when a session has been > >"changed"? Obviously, you can detect setAttribute/removeAttribute, but > >what about changes to the *internal* state of the attributes themselves > >that the session does not know about? > > I think we have to consider the session to be "dirty" at the end of > any request in which it was accessed. > That's certainly feasible, but I'd bet we find it's too conservative a view given the potential impact on performance (i.e. "needless" replications). > Kief > > Craig