james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: James IMAP and Alfresco and refactoring
Date Thu, 06 May 2010 21:19:28 GMT
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Norman Maurer
<norman.maurer@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> comments inside..
> 2010/5/6 Eric I. <eric@linuxbox.com>:
>> Tim-Christian Mundt <dev <at> tim-erwin.de> writes:
>>> > Alfresco's JCR implementation only allows one session per thread.
>>> I think Alfresco stores the session stuff in a Thread Local variable (at
>>> least using web services), so there can be only one active session at a
>>> time per thread. However, what does prevent you from simply creating a
>>> new one overriding the old (which is then lost of course)? Does it throw
>>> an exception?
>> Yes, it does throw an exception --
>> javax.jcr.RepositoryException: Only one active session is allowed per thread.
>>        at
>> org.apache.james.imap.jcr.JCRMailboxManager.getSession
>>        (JCRMailboxManager.java:115)
>>        at
>> org.apache.james.imap.jcr.JCRMailboxManager.createMailboxMapper
>>        (JCRMailboxManager.java:91)
>>        at org.apache.james.imap.jcr.JCRMailboxManager.doCreate
>>        (JCRMailboxManager.java:123)
>>        at
>> org.apache.james.imap.store.StoreMailboxManager.createMailbox
>>        (StoreMailboxManager.java:198)
>> ...
>>> On the other hand:
>>> > 2) And is there a good reason not to change James IMAP's JCR implementation
>> to re-use JCR sessions rather
>>> than create new ones for a given client?
>>> >
>>> Sessions contain transactions, so if one mailbox is accessed from
>>> several clients simultaneously, we need one session for each client.
>>> Using the global mailbox/manager there is definitely a need for creating
>>> several sessions, unless I'm mistaken. Each IMAP request needs its own
>>> transaction, hence sessions cannot be shared.
>>> Within one single request I think we don't need several sessions. The
>>> JCR sessions should simply be stored in the James sessions. So
>>> "getSession" in Mailbox and MailboxManager would need to be slightly
>>> adjusted.
>> So that makes sense -- a client can make multiple requests, each request gets
>> its own JCR session. Quickly scanning the current IMAP code it does not appear
>> that threads are spawned to handle various requests from a given client. In
>> other words, it appears as though a given client's requests are serialized. Is
>> that correct? If so, then I'd think that a session can be made at the start of a
>> request's processing, and then .logout() can be called on the JCR session to
>> release it. The same thread would get a new JCR session when it processes the
>> next request.
>> Eric
> My plan would be to have some kind of request scoped session pattern.
> Something like this but just for JCR/JPA etc..:
> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/2.5.x/api/org/springframework/orm/jpa/support/OpenEntityManagerInViewFilter.html
> So the Session/EntityManager is re-used the whole request.
> For this it should get created in teh startProcessingRequest(...)
> method and closed in the endProcessingRequest(...) method.

FWIW the way i'd intended to flip the API was to allow access to many
methods through a call back interface eg

interface MailboxTransactionRequest {

public Response process(Mailbox mailbox);


- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message