On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:10:38 +0100, Jorgen Thelin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>yu_robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>For compatibility, I suggest that you should not use this "feature" in WLG,
>>whether all ejbs live in one JVM or not is not mandatory in specification.
>
>This WebLogic "feature" is unfortunately defaulted to on with WebLogic
>5.1 at least - a rather dangerous default IMHO.
I discussed this topic extensively on the Weblogic newsgroups last year
(news://www4.weblogic.com/weblogic.developer.interest.ejb). All
pros/cons were presented, along with discussion with the EJB folks at
WebLogic (aka BEA WebXpress) about this. I.e., the problem is very well
known.
If the default is to be contra-spec, then that is a decision they made
and not an oversight. Which has pros and cons. I think the main line of
reasoning is "most people will want the performance boost out of the box
instead of portable and deterministic behaviour of beans.". That's the
impression I got anyway. Rob, did I get it wrong? ;-)
>Specifically, the EJB Container is ** not allowed to ** pass non-remote
>objects by reference on inter-EJB invocations when the calling and
>called enterprise beans are collocated in the same JVM.
>Doing so could result in the multiple beans sharing the state of a Java
>object, which would break the enterprise bean's semantics.
Yes, quite nasty. And if you're clustering things you will get copying
sometimes (when beans talk to beans in same cluster, but other VM) and
no copying sometimes.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
===========================================================================
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".
