<font size=2 face="sans-serif">It sounds like we have an agreement. <br>
<br>
As you have requested I have reopened my PRs: <br>
<br>
2.4: </font><a href="https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1983"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1983</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
3.1: </font><a href="https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1992"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1992</font></a>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">master: </font><a href="https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1982"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif">https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1982</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Please let me know if you have any other changes you'd like made.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Benjamin </font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Allan Zhang <zhang@ca.ibm.com></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com>,
Shinji Ohtsuka <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>,
weld-dev@lists.jboss.org</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">13/05/2020 15:38</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[EXTERNAL] Re:
[weld-dev] Propagation of org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through session failover</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>That's a very good catch! You're right.<br>
<br>
Tracking this back, I think I understand why and how it works the way it
does now.<br>
<br>
That JBoss issue was a known problem before a rework of session replication
- after that it was no longer an issue and that, I suppose,<br>
was the reason why we still had WELD-1130 open and unsolved. I guess we
didn't hear any complaints from other EE servers until you came<br>
and implemented WELD-1130 using the added config option 'RESET_HTTP_SESSION_ATTR_ON_BEAN_ACCESS'.<br>
<br>
In the light of that I think the correct way to solve this would be a PR
just like Benjamin sent initially - </font></tt><a href="https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1983/files"><tt><font size=2>https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1983/files</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>
<br>
Implement aggressive re-storing of conversation map in the session but
gate it behind the aforementioned configuration property (so that default
Weld behaviour stays intact).<br>
I've already created a WELD issue for it - </font></tt><a href="https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WELD-2626"><tt><font size=2>https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WELD-2626</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>
<br>
<br>
Feel free to send PRs.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Matej<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Allan Zhang" <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> Cc: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com>, "Shinji
Ohtsuka" <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, "Emily Jiang"<br>
> <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>, weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:26:34 PM<br>
> Subject: RE: [weld-dev] Propagation of org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through session<br>
> failover<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I thought this was an old bug that resolved already<br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WELD-1130"><tt><font size=2>https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WELD-1130</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>
<br>
> <br>
> Similarly It was documented under know issue of JBPAPP6-1326 - CDI
beans<br>
> with SET replication trigger are not replicating<br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/jboss_enterprise_application_platform/6/html/release_notes_6.0.1/ar01s06"><tt><font size=2>https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/jboss_enterprise_application_platform/6/html/release_notes_6.0.1/ar01s06</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2>
<br>
> @Benjamin Can the customer use SET_AND_NON_PRIMITIVE_GET setting?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Allan Zhang<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From:
Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> To:
Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> Cc:
Shinji Ohtsuka <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang<br>
> <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>,
weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, Allan Zhang<br>
> <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> Date:
2020-05-12 09:10 AM<br>
> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Re: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations<br>
> through session failover<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> @Allan<br>
> I read part 7.7.2 of the spec and I see no indications of such requirement<br>
> there.<br>
> FYI, you are probably not subscribed to weld-dev list and your emails
are<br>
> not getting through (but I am getting them as I am in the CC) -<br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2020-May/date.html"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/2020-May/date.html</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> @Benjamin<br>
> > I'm investigating what can be done on our end, but since it is
a<br>
> > grey area shouldn't weld err on the side of following Oracle's
advice? Or<br>
> > at least include a setting to switch to following the advice?<br>
> <br>
> As for Weld, the conversation map is not the only thing we store in<br>
> session.<br>
> For instance, whole session context is stored there (every single
bean).<br>
> Even conversation context might be stored there and maybe something
else<br>
> but from the top of my head, these are quite prominent.<br>
> And we also do not call setAttribute() every single time a bean changes
or<br>
> is accessed. That would be massive perf overhead.<br>
> What I mean is that the issue you are seeing is a tip of an iceberg
- it<br>
> looks easy to fix for this one scenario/case, but it wouldn't be a
complete<br>
> change as multiple other things function the same way and it would
require<br>
> bigger code changes that I don't think are worth it.<br>
> What you are asking for is, simply said, an unsupported replication
mode.<br>
> <br>
> Unless you can change the way Liberty treats mutable attributes in
session,<br>
> your customer should probably swap to a mode where all attributes
are<br>
> stored/replicated on shutdown.<br>
> <br>
> Matej<br>
> <br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > Cc: "Shinji Ohtsuka" <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, "Emily
Jiang"<br>
> <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>, weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, "Allan<br>
> > Zhang" <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:02:04 PM<br>
> > Subject: RE: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations through session<br>
> > failover<br>
> ><br>
> > Hello<br>
> ><br>
> > I spoke to Allan and he agrees with you that it is a grey area
in the<br>
> > spec. I'm investigating what can be done on our end, but since
it is a<br>
> > grey area shouldn't weld err on the side of following Oracle's
advice? Or<br>
> > at least include a setting to switch to following the advice?
Especially<br>
> > since it would be technically simple to do so; as the map is
only<br>
> modified<br>
> > in one class and Allan says it would be a good performance improvement.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards<br>
> > Benjamin<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > From: Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > To: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > Cc: Allan Zhang <zhang@ca.ibm.com>, Shinji
Ohtsuka<br>
> > <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>,<br>
> > weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> > Date: 11/05/2020 09:33<br>
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [weld-dev]
Propagation of<br>
> > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations through
session<br>
> > failover<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > The document you linked is not a specification itself and as
such is not<br>
> > binding. Do you have an actual specification bits that prove
this?<br>
> ><br>
> > I went looking into servlet specification[1] and asked someone
from WFLY<br>
> > who has more expertise in this field to also take a look.<br>
> > None of us found anything stating that you are required to call<br>
> > setAttribute() every time you change mutable attribute.<br>
> > In fact there is very little about attributes (or "replication
triggers"<br>
> > for attributes) and you could say this is grey area.<br>
> ><br>
> > To me it still makes way more sense to distinguish between<br>
> > mutable/immutable attributes and for mutable ones you should
set "dirty"<br>
> > state even on read, not just write.<br>
> ><br>
> > Matej<br>
> ><br>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________<br>
> <br>
> > [1]<br>
> ><br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://javaee.github.io/servlet-spec/downloads/servlet-4.0/servlet-4_0_FINAL.pdf"><tt><font size=2>https://javaee.github.io/servlet-spec/downloads/servlet-4.0/servlet-4_0_FINAL.pdf</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > To: "Allan Zhang" <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> > > Cc: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com>,
"Shinji Ohtsuka"<br>
> > <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, "Emily Jiang"<br>
> > > <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>, weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:41:01 PM<br>
> > > Subject: RE: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations through
session<br>
> > > failover<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hello<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Based on Allan Zhang's comments I have closed my pull requests
and<br>
> > opened<br>
> > > this one<br>
> ><br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1990"><tt><font size=2>https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1990</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> > which is a better match<br>
> > > for the recommendations in the sessionmanagement spec. I
still have not<br>
> > > heard back from my customer so I will compile an updated
test fix and<br>
> > > chase them up. If they approve, or if they do not reply
soon I will<br>
> > create<br>
> > > pull requests for the other branches.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Regards<br>
> > > Benjamin<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > From: Allan Zhang/Toronto/IBM<br>
> > > To: Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > Cc: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com>,
Shinji Ohtsuka<br>
> > > <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>,<br>
> > > weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> > > Date: 06/05/2020 17:42<br>
> > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [weld-dev]
Propagation of<br>
> > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> session<br>
> > > failover<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > >Shouldn't Liberty consider (at least after restart)
any access to a<br>
> > > collection-based session property as an action marking that
property<br>
> > > "dirty"?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Liberty already has write option of ALL_SESSION_ATTRIBUTES
to mark the<br>
> > > property "dirty" but customer wont use it for
performance reasons.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > The PR fix is following the JEE spec where property "dirty"
require<br>
> > > setAttribute() call.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13924_01/coh.340/e13819/sessionmanagement.htm"><tt><font size=2>https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13924_01/coh.340/e13819/sessionmanagement.htm</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > As a general rule, all session attributes should be treated
as<br>
> immutable<br>
> > > objects if possible. This ensures that developers are consciously
aware<br>
> > > when they change attributes. With mutable objects, modifying
attributes<br>
> > > often requires two steps: modifying the state of the attribute
object,<br>
> > and<br>
> > > then manually updating the session with the modified attribute
object<br>
> by<br>
> > > calling javax.servlet.http.HttpSession.setAttribute(). This
means that<br>
> > > your application should always call setAttribute() if the
attribute<br>
> > value<br>
> > > has been changed, otherwise, the modified attribute value
will not<br>
> > > replicate to the backup server.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thanks<br>
> > > Allan Zhang<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > From: Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > To: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > Cc: Shinji Ohtsuka <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>,
Emily Jiang<br>
> > > <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>, weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, Allan
Zhang<br>
> > > <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> > > Date: 2020-05-06 07:52 AM<br>
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [weld-dev]
Propagation of<br>
> > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> session<br>
> > > failover<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hi,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > thanks for explanation, I understand the flow now.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > However, your suggested PR still looks like a workaround
more than a<br>
> fix<br>
> > > to me.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I doubt Weld is the only case where this will emerge. You
can easily<br>
> > store<br>
> > > any collection in session and expect it to behave like we
do.<br>
> > > So in the very least, anything of type java.util.Collection
that is<br>
> > stored<br>
> > > in session is susceptible to this behaviour.<br>
> > > Shouldn't Liberty consider (at least after restart) any
access to a<br>
> > > collection-based session property as an action marking that
property<br>
> > > "dirty"?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Regards<br>
> > > Matej<br>
> > ><br>
> > > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > > > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > > Cc: "Shinji Ohtsuka" <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>,
"Emily Jiang"<br>
> > > <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com>, weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, "Allan<br>
> > > > Zhang" <zhang@ca.ibm.com><br>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:59:30 PM<br>
> > > > Subject: RE: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> session<br>
> > > > failover<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Hello Matej<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > No worries about the delay, my customer has not responded
so you are<br>
> > > ahead<br>
> > > > of schedule. You are correct, the purpose of this PR
is to trigger<br>
> the<br>
> > > > "dirty" state in liberty's session storage.
Let me try and describe<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > flow again and hopefully it will be clearer:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > A1) The application is started for the first time.
A conversation map<br>
> > is<br>
> > > > created and stored into the session context. This marks
it as dirty.<br>
> > > > A2) The application puts stuff into the map. Lets say
this leaves the<br>
> > > map<br>
> > > > in State A<br>
> > > > A3) The server is told to shut down.<br>
> > > > A4) Liberty sees the map is dirty and saves map State
A to persistent<br>
> > > > storage.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > B1) The server starts again.<br>
> > > > B2) Weld retrieves the conversation map (State A) from
persistent<br>
> > > storage.<br>
> > > > Since it already has a map it does not put anything
into session<br>
> > > storage.<br>
> > > > Thus the map is clean.<br>
> > > > B3) The application does more stuff, moving the map
to (State B).<br>
> > > > B3) The server is told to shut down.<br>
> > > > B4) Liberty sees the map is clean, it doesn't transfer
anything to<br>
> > > > persistent storage.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > C1) The server starts again.<br>
> > > > C2) Weld retrieves the conversation map (State A).
This is the wrong<br>
> > > > state.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > My PR changes B2 so that Weld will set the same map
back into session<br>
> > > > storage. Then in B4 liberty will see the map is dirty
and save State<br>
> B<br>
> > > to<br>
> > > > storage, ensuring the correct state is retrieved at
C2.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > We do have alternative solutions, for example you can
configure<br>
> > Liberty<br>
> > > to<br>
> > > > store everything regardless of whether it is dirty
or not. However<br>
> > this<br>
> > > > has performance implications and so my customer does
not want to use<br>
> > > that<br>
> > > > option.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Regards<br>
> > > > Benjamin<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > From: Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > > To: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > Cc: weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, Allan Zhang
<zhang@ca.ibm.com>,<br>
> > Shinji<br>
> > > > Ohtsuka <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > Date: 05/05/2020 12:17<br>
> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:
[weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> > session<br>
> > > > failover<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > I finally found some time to look into this, it took
longer than I<br>
> > > > anticipated, sorry for that.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Firstly, I am not quite following the flow of the reproducer
you<br>
> > > > described.<br>
> > > > Weld creates the conversation map and stores in into
the session on<br>
> > > > creation. We then retrieve this map from session whenever
needed and<br>
> > > store<br>
> > > > additional things into it.<br>
> > > > All the while we use the same map (the same reference,
or object if<br>
> > you<br>
> > > > will)....so Liberty should see the same state in it,
right? Or am I<br>
> > > > missing something obvious?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > I am not familiar with how Liberty deals with server
shutdown and how<br>
> > it<br>
> > > > stores session attributes, but i would expect that
if you just grab<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > existing map from there, it will be up to date.<br>
> > > > The PRs you sent seem superfluous to me - you are overriding
the<br>
> > > attribute<br>
> > > > with exactly the same thing. probably just to trigger
"dirty" state<br>
> in<br>
> > > > your session storage?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Regards<br>
> > > > Matej<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > > > > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > > > Cc: weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, "Allan Zhang"
<zhang@ca.ibm.com>,<br>
> > > "Shinji<br>
> > > > Ohtsuka" <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, "Emily
Jiang"<br>
> > > > > <EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:56:43 AM<br>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> > session<br>
> > > > > failover<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Thank you for the heads up. When it's time to
think about delivery<br>
> > > I'll<br>
> > > > be<br>
> > > > > sure to create a PR against 3.1 and I presume
you'd like me to<br>
> leave<br>
> > > > > master alone for now?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Regards<br>
> > > > > Benjamin<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > From: Matej Novotny <manovotn@redhat.com><br>
> > > > > To: Benjamin Confino <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > Cc: weld-dev@lists.jboss.org, Allan
Zhang <zhang@ca.ibm.com>,<br>
> > > Shinji<br>
> > > > > Ohtsuka <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, Emily Jiang
<EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > Date: 29/04/2020 09:51<br>
> > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Re: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > > > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> > > session<br>
> > > > > failover<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Hi,<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > I'll take a look later today.<br>
> > > > > Note that master branch is no longer Weld 3.x,
it is 4.x (Jakarta<br>
> EE<br>
> > > 9)<br>
> > > > > and the CI there is going bonkers yet as I am
in the middle of<br>
> > > changing<br>
> > > > > it.<br>
> > > > > If you want to file a PR against Weld 3, you can
use 3.1 branch for<br>
> > > > that.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Regards<br>
> > > > > Matej<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > > > > > From: "Benjamin Confino" <BENJAMIC@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > > To: weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> > > > > > Cc: "Allan Zhang" <zhang@ca.ibm.com>,
"Shinji Ohtsuka"<br>
> > > > > <EB92769@jp.ibm.com>, "Emily Jiang"
<EMIJIANG@uk.ibm.com><br>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:31:44 PM<br>
> > > > > > Subject: [weld-dev] Propagation of<br>
> > > > > org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations
through<br>
> > > session<br>
> > > > > failover<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Hello weld<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > I had a customer report that they were getting
conversation not<br>
> > > found<br>
> > > > > > exceptions when restarting their server and
visiting a url with a<br>
> > > > ?cid=1<br>
> > > > > > suffix.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > After investigation I believe the issue is
that weld was<br>
> acquiring<br>
> > > > it's<br>
> > > > > > ConversationContext.conversations from the
session database via<br>
> > > > > > com.ibm.ws.session.store.db.DatabaseSession.getMultiRowAppData().<br>
> > > Once<br>
> > > > > weld<br>
> > > > > > had retrieved the conversations map it would
then decide that<br>
> > since<br>
> > > > the<br>
> > > > > map<br>
> > > > > > was already in the session attributes there
was no need to put it<br>
> > > back<br>
> > > > > into<br>
> > > > > > the attributes.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > This means that Liberty did not realise the
conversations map had<br>
> > > been<br>
> > > > > > updated, and did not store it's updated state
into the database<br>
> > when<br>
> > > > the<br>
> > > > > > server shut down again.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > I have submitted a pair of pull requests
that asks weld to mark<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > > > conversation map as dirty upon access - this
behaviour is gated<br>
> > > behind<br>
> > > > > > ConfigurationKey.RESET_HTTP_SESSION_ATTR_ON_BEAN_ACCESS
- I have<br>
> > > > tested<br>
> > > > > it<br>
> > > > > > locally and it works. The next step is to
prepare a test fix for<br>
> > the<br>
> > > > > > customer to verify. However I wanted to send
you this quick note<br>
> > to<br>
> > > > keep<br>
> > > > > you<br>
> > > > > > in the loop.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Regards<br>
> > > > > > Benjamin<br>
> > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in
England and Wales with<br>
> > > > number<br>
> > > > > > 741598.<br>
> > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth,<br>
> Hampshire<br>
> > > PO6<br>
> > > > > 3AU<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > > > weld-dev mailing list<br>
> > > > > > weld-dev@lists.jboss.org<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> </font></tt><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev"><tt><font size=2>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales with<br>
> > > number<br>
> > > > > 741598.<br>
> > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire<br>
> > PO6<br>
> > > > 3AU<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales with<br>
> > number<br>
> > > > 741598.<br>
> > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire<br>
> PO6<br>
> > > 3AU<br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with<br>
> number<br>
> > > 741598.<br>
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire PO6<br>
> > 3AU<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with number<br>
> > 741598.<br>
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6<br>
> 3AU<br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU<br>
</font>