Re: Serializing server state final thoughts

From: Ed Burns <>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:37:43 -0700

>>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:10:36 -0600, Michael Youngstrom <> said:

MY> So, the the votes are in and it looks like the decision is to not
MY> serialize the server state. However, does this snippet from the spec
MY> make our vote irrelevant?

MY> Section 7.6.3: when talking about server state management says:

MY> "The default implementation Serializes the view in both the client and
MY> server modes. In the
MY> server mode, this serialized view is stored in the session and a
MY> unique key to retrieve the
MY> view is sent down to the client. By storing the serialized view in the
MY> session, failover may happen using the usual mechanisms provided by
MY> the container."

MY> It seems pretty explicit here. This is probably why Myfaces
MY> serializes the view by default in "SERVER" mode. Does this snippet
MY> from the spec change our decision at all? If we decide to ignore this
MY> snippet of the spec we should probably let MyFaces know so that they
MY> don't have to serialize the view by default.

Ah yes, I recall now why we put that in there. It was to guarantee that
failover would work in clustering server scenarios.

I propose we modify the spec to introduce a config param that turns it
on, but have it off by default. Should I take that to the EG?


| 154 Business Days until JavaOne 2008
|  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage:         |
| aim: edburns0sunw | iim: