Well ... this depends on whether or not the EJB server supports pooling. If it
don't, then the life time of your expensive resource connection is only as long
as the next ejbPassivate. Pooling is not required by the specification.
Rickard �berg wrote:
> Hey
>
> Larry Allen wrote:
> > Hmm. I've been thinking about this one for a while now, and I've come to a
> > somewhat radically different conclusion: I'm not convinced that there's
> > substantial benefit in pooling EJB bean instances.
> <snip>
>
> You forget that setEntityContext() is a potentially expensive operation.
> If the bean creates sockets to a legacy system or something similar
> those calls alone are reason to have pooling.
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Computer Science student@LiTH
> @home: +46 13 177937
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Senior Consultant
BORN Information Services
===========================================================================
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".
