i'm with greg on this one. In grizzly, we'd create a new WebSocket per
connection and save state there. In the WebSocketApplication class, there
was an overridable factory method that allowed for specialization at the
application layer that let the app author do whatever was needed. With
access into the Application from a WebSocket, state could be shared exposed
as needed. I'm not entirely sure we need to work too hard to deal with
things like shared credentials on multiple connections from a client since
muxing alleviate that multiple connection problem when it lands. That
said, it's up for debate how much we want to plan around impending features
(that might be impending for a year+) or just design to what we have *now*
that we know browsers and clients support.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Joe Walnes <joe_at_walnes.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5 August 2012 19:05, Mark Thomas <mark_at_homeinbox.net> wrote:
>> > The question this raises for me is what is the mechanism going to be for
>> > retaining state? i.e. what is the WebSocket equivalent of HttpSession
>> > going to be? The follow-on question is how is state information
>> > transferred between the WebSocketSession (for want of a better name
>> > right now) and the HttpSession.
>>
>> In my websocket work to date, having websocket session has not been an
>> issue as we create an EndPoint per connection as a new object that can
>> hold state.
>>
>
> That's true, but there's also some state that needs to be shared between
> connections such as authentication credentials.
>
>
--
You can find me on the net at:
http://antwerkz.com http://antwerkz.com/+
http://antwerkz.com/twitter http://antwerkz.com/github