dan benanav wrote:
>
> I think it is not well known that deadlock can occur in subtle ways
> when
> pessimistic concurrency is used.
I would not use the term "subtle". Pessimistic concurrency can easily
lead to deadlocks.
arkin
> 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".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaf Arkin www.exoffice.com
CTO, Exoffice Technologies, Inc. www.exolab.org
===========================================================================
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".
