Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on HTTP::HTTP_SessionServer

Hi, Stephan Schmidt wrote:

I could not find anything specific on the msession protocol, so I implemented my own protocol with all commands that I needed. And I did not like that you have to pass the session id with every get and set. There are a couple of other things I did not like about msession, like the lock/unlock, I prefer open in different modes and commit like I implemented it in HTTP_SessionServer.

I was talking about msession as an example. In addition to msession, there seem to be some existent technologies for replicated session management (especially in the Java area) and I was wondering if, for the sake of interoperability, it wouldn't be nice to be compatible with some of these. This way, some software that's already available and that use one of these technologies, could be easily integrated with your server, or with applications that use the client API you provide. But, as far as I googled, there really seem to be nothing standardized. Each, platform (websphere, etc...) has its own backend, accessed through a standardized "HttpSession" interface. I don't know what exists for .net, but I found this interesting Java-oriented article : http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp07294.html I think I'm not too off-topic with the following citation, about "Session affinity" : "[...] A more common approach is to combine load balancing with session affinity -- the load balancer is able to associate connections with sessions and route subsequent requests within a session to the same server. This feature is supported by numerous hardware and software load balancers and means that replicated session information is only accessed when the primary connection host fails and the session needs to be failed over to another server."

What do you think about this ? Have you been thinking of such HTTP-encapsulation ?

The best solution probably would be buying one not-so-cheap server, where you may start your own daemon. The cheap servers may still access the SessionServer using fsockopen().

Well, it's not exactly a matter of buying a server, you still need the bandwidth pipe :-). Many people can only afford shared hosting, as opposed to a dedicated server. Is load-balancing forbidden to them ? Of course, they could get a faster shared hosting account... Some may still want to do load-balancing in this situation though, for fun :-) -- og