wicket-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Possible optimization of page store manager
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:48:15 GMT
Hi Robin,

Thanks for your thoughts! Can you create a JIRA ticket and attach the path
to it? The patch didn't make it through to the mailing list, and things
tend to get lost anyway due to the amount of traffic on this list.


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Robin Shine <robin@pmease.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> We are using Wicket to develop our web application product (QuickBuild)
> for six years, and this makes our life a lot easier when comes to maintain
> our code base due to Wicket's component approach and type safe nature of
> Java.
> As our product gets more used in companies, it is not uncommon that
> thousands of users are accessing the application concurrently, and at peak
> time the server sometimes gets stressed to have slow response time. Our
> benchmark shows that offen the server is busy serializing pages. This is
> not strange as our application uses ajax heavily and every ajax call to the
> server triggers the page store to persist (serialize and write) the whole
> page on disk.
> To my understanding, Wicket serializes/saves stateful pages for purpose of
> back button support. At commit stage of every request, all touched pages
> will be put into session cache, and also get persisted via page store. This
> mechanism works but results in a lot of unnecessary page persistence. To
> explain it, assume below workflow:
> 1. User loads the stateful page and wicket creates a page instance to put
> in session cache, as well as persist to disk.
> 2. User clicks some action links (either ajax or non-ajax) subsequently to
> update parts of the page, but still remains in the same page instance, and
> the url displayed in browser remains unchanged. For every request, Wicket
> updates the page instance, put it into session cache, and finally persist
> it to disk.
> 3. User clicks some other links to cause new page instance being created,
> and Wicket does the same to put new instance in session cache and persist
> the new instance.
> Here in step 2, page persistence seems unnecessary to me except for the
> last request. That is to say, if a page instance is touched by many
> requests before switching to a different page instance, only the last touch
> has to persist the instance. This is because when user goes back to
> previous page instance, only the last saved state of that instance will be
> used.
> Based on this assumption, I modified method "storeTouchedPages" of
> PageStoreManager.java to compare ids of previous page instances (stored in
> session cache) and touched page instances. If they are different, persist
> the previous page instances. I tested the modification with several cases
> of page refreshing/backing and it seems that they all work correctly.
> Although I used Wicket for some time, I seldomly digged into Wicket
> internals. So probably I have missed some important factors when assuming
> above. Can someone here take a look at attached modification and kindly let
> me know if this is meaningful?
> Thanks
> Robin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message