Chris Raber wrote:
> Either the container maintains instances per transaction ("clone" as you
> say), or invocations are serialized through a single bean instance. The
> latter approach could be a serious scalability issue IMHO.
I agree with Chris, cloning scales better.
> > Then entity beans don't really buy us a lot for updates.
> >
> The issue of updating in a distributed environment is the same regardless of
> life cycle control (which is what EB's give us). Typically you want to
> buffer updates between transactions in such an environment. Whether you are
> using Entity Beans or not you would find yourself playing the same games (we
> did a lot of stuff like this in the raw CORBA days, and in days of wine and
> roses of distributed Smalltalk).
Once again I have to fully agree with Chris.
arkin
>
> > Entity beans are
> > still nice for read-only use, but only if the entity beans are kept in an
> > active pool for a while, or the state of the bean is always kept nearby in
> > the write-through data cache that you speak of. Again, do I have this
> > right?
> >
> Yup, I think so.
>
> > Thanks,
> > DB
> >...
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaf Arkin www.exoffice.com
CTO, Exoffice Technologies, Inc. www.exolab.org
===========================================================================
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".
