I think it is not well known that deadlock can occur in subtle ways
when
pessimistic concurrency is used.
Here is an example.
Transaction1 - Bean A calls BeanC then Bean A calls Bean B.
Transaction2 - Bean D calls BeanB then Bean D calls Bean C.
This will deadlock with Bean A waiting for BeanB and Bean D waiting for
BeanC.
I think this will be a common occurence. The only thing that differs is
that Bean A calls Bean B and Bean C in a different order then Bean D.
The misconception is that one doesn't need to consider deadlock with
EJB!
dan
===========================================================================
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".
