Awesome. Great job David. Thanks a lot for that. I gonna have a look and test it now.
Jean-Louis David Blevins wrote: > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:20 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> >> On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: >>> >>>> REQUIRED -> REQUIRES_NEW >>>> REQUIRED -> NOT_SUPPORTED >>> >>> Hey Jean-Louis, do you think you'll need the REQUIRED -> >>> REQUIRES_NEW scenario? Technically neither of the above is legal >>> or portable, but I think we can support REQUIRED->NOT_SUPPORTED >>> just fine, but the other may be a tricky rule to bend code wise. >>> >>> The code I'm working on now associates a Transaction with the >>> o.a.o.core.stateful.Instance object (basically a new field) and >>> uses that to determine if you are attempting to use the instance >>> outside the transaction. Going from a transaction state to a non >>> transaction state is doable. Going from a transaction state to >>> another transaction state (essentially an nested transaction) would >>> require a bit of fanciness. >> >> Grr. Got something that works, but now am running into an issue >> with one of the more obscure restrictions that you can't remove a >> bean via its EJBObject or EJBHome interface if it is in a >> transaction. It's breaking one of our tests and I know it will >> break the TCK. >> > > Alright, we're good on this one now. > > We now track a transaction object in the Instance which is checked to > prevent access outside the transaction. It's actually a stack of > Transaction objects.. more on that next. > > We also have some special logic that allows the client using the > instance in the transaction to bend the rules and invoke the bean as > it wishes (it can still invoke REQUIRES_NEW and NOT_SUPPORTED > methods). In this scenario the instance will still be considered in > transaction stay locked to other threads. > > Going to push new snapshots. On the Geronimo side we'll want to kick > off a new tck run. If that looks good, we can finally cut this release. > > > -David > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/TR%3A--jira--Created%3A-%28OPENEJB-1049%29-Stateful-session-cache-management-issue-tp24356051p25657850.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
