>From the 1.1 spec is would appear as if the container has the option of
delegating any method call from a client to any stateless session bean
thats in it's pool. So each of foo, bar, and baz would run in a different
stateless session bean.
Does this sound right?
-----Original Message-----
From: Laird Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Stateless Session Beans
>Marc San Soucie wrote:
>> A client reference to a stateless session bean - obtained via a home
lookup
>> and subsequent create - ought to be good for some period of time.
"Session
>> timeout" seems like a good time interval specifier. But after that time,
>> the reference should be cancellable, after which the client must either
>> resolve a handle, "create" a new reference, or look up the home and
>> "create" again.
>
>Goodness; if I'm reading you right, I certainly hope not.
>
>That is, this code had *better* work even when sleepInterval >
>sessionBean.timeout:
>
> sessionBean.foo();
> Thread.currentThread().sleep(sleepInterval);
>
> sessionBean.bar();
> Thread.currentThread().sleep(sleepInterval);
>
> sessionBean.baz();
> Thread.currentThread().sleep(sleepInterval);
>
>...or more precisely, assuming that the server is up all this time.
>
>I know that the open source servers support this. I'd certainly pick
>one of them over a commercial implementation that doesn't allow this!
>
>Cheers,
>Laird
>
>===========================================================================
>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".
===========================================================================
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".
