Re: [Glass] Why session locking is necessary for Seaside?
Dale Henrichs <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.seaside |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 03/22/2017 02:42 AM, Johan Brichau wrote: >>> I am intrigued about the ORIGINAL needs of such a need. Because as Pharo and GemStone and too it makes me wonder if the lock would be needed on GemStone. >> I've read some of the newer Seaside code and while I can easily tell that there is still session state being copied and restored (see senders and implementers of snapShotCopy and restoreFromSnapShot:), it is not easy to tell how it is being protected from logical or physical corruption ... WACache has a mutex protecting the cache updates, but I still don't see how the component snapshots are being protected from concurrent updates ... > That should be the WAMutualExclusionFilter, no? > This one is never installed in the Gemstone code. > Ah, that does look like the one ... so maybe you know how/if this filter is bypassed by ajax calls when running in Pharo ... or perhaps it's just more visible with GemStone? Dale _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside