Dave,
As per the EJB 1.1 spec, a container serializes access to each
session bean instance. In the case of a SLSB, a single instance
*could* become the bottleneck under heavy loads - say when
the number of concurrent clients increase.
An alternative is to have a multiple instances of the same SLSB
service client requests. This is not a contradiction of a SLSB as
the instance does not hold any state relative to a client. Thus
multiple instances of a SLSB can serve multiple client requests
in a multi-threaded way - overcoming the serial access imposed
by the ejb 1.1 spec.
-krish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why pool stateless session beans?
> Thanks for your reply Avi.
>
> <<have no client-related state, but may maintain their own state.>>
> I am aware of this. It does not however answer my question. Why not just
> have ONE instance serve ALL clients? Why bother with the pool at all?
>
> Dave Ford
> Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
> http://www.smart-soft.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".
