I believe for the example, would is correct and for more normal
situations, could would be better. Anyone for Dr. Seuss on EJBs. ;)
Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Endres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Stateless Session Beans
>> From the 1.1 spec is would appear as if the container has the option of
>> delegating any method call from a client to any stateless session bean
>> thats in it's pool. So each of foo, bar, and baz would run in a
different
>> stateless session bean.
>>
>> Does this sound right?
>
>Change 'would run' to 'could run', and yes it sounds right.
>Otherwise, what would be the point of remaining stateless?
>There is no state to be concerned with between method calls,
>so why do you care which particular bean handles it?
>
>tim.
>Tim Endres - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ICE Engineering, Inc. - http://www.ice.com/
>"USENET - a slow moving self parody." - Peter Honeyman
>
>===========================================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
>of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
