-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
All,
I'm interested in the history of the StandardSession.writeObjectData
method. I've been looking at it lately because I'm interested in
possibly (optionally) encrypting the sessions in the backend session
store. But this isn't about encryption at all.
The code for StandardSession.doWriteObject(ObjectOutputStream stream)
looks like this:
// Write the scalar instance variables (except Manager)
stream.writeObject(Long.valueOf(creationTime));
stream.writeObject(Long.valueOf(lastAccessedTime));
stream.writeObject(Integer.valueOf(maxInactiveInterval));
stream.writeObject(Boolean.valueOf(isNew));
stream.writeObject(Boolean.valueOf(isValid));
stream.writeObject(Long.valueOf(thisAccessedTime));
Is there any reason we are writing object wrappers for these primitive
members instead of just writing the primitives directly?
It turns out that the byte stream is identical whether one uses
objects or primitives, but the code is a little more complicated,
generates objects when none are necessary, etc. Here is the
doReadObject code:
creationTime = ((Long) stream.readObject()).longValue();
lastAccessedTime = ((Long) stream.readObject()).longValue();
maxInactiveInterval = ((Integer) stream.readObject()).intValue()
;
isNew = ((Boolean) stream.readObject()).booleanValue();
isValid = ((Boolean) stream.readObject()).booleanValue();
thisAccessedTime = ((Long) stream.readObject()).longValue();
If using primitives, it would be:
creationTime = stream.readLong();
lastAccessedTime = stream.readLong();
maxInactiveInterval = stream.readInt();
isNew = stream.readBoolean();
isValid = stream.readBoolean();
thisAccessedTime = stream.readLong();
I don't believe there is any benefit to using objects over primitives
in this case. If the stream doesn't contain the right object types in
the right order, the operation will fail so they are providing any
e.g. type-safety that you might get by casting to (Number) and then
pulling long value (to convert an int -> long, possibly).
I think the code is easier to read and will generate less temporary
garbage if the wrapper objects are removed.
I think the change will also remain interoperable between versions
since the byte-stream is unchanged.
Any objections to making this change?
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/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=vEuO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
