James Cook wrote:
> private LoginRemote login = null;
>
> init() {
> LoginHome home = lookup("loginBean");
> LoginRemote login = home.create(); // <-- pseudo-code
> }
>
> What I'm questioning is the position Gemstone (and perhaps others)
> take regarding the validity of "login", my reference to a local stub
> class that wishes to communicate with a remote EJBObject. If I
> understand, Gemstone will not guarantee that my call to
> login.validate(username, password) will succeed, because the
> server-side EJBObject may of been discarded.
I guess specific implementations may vary, but why should `login' even
point to a specific EJBObject until you call login.validate() ?
Instead, it could just contain a pointer to the pool of stateless
Session Beans of the appropriate class. When you call
login.validate(), the server could follow that pointer, grab an object
from the pool, execute the business method, then release the object
back to the pool. Then that object is available for use by other
clients. What advantage would be gained by tieing that specific
instance on the server to a specific instance of LoginRemote?
- Rujith.
===========================================================================
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".
