According to the EJB 1.1 spec the container is *supposed* to
throw an exception on the 2nd-Nth re-entrant call. Apparently
not all vendors are compliant yet.

We ran into this problem (Gemstone is compliant and throws the exception)
and solved it by creating a session pool on the client side.


Frank Sauer
The Technical Resource Connection
Tampa, FL
http://www.trcinc.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Curt Smith
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Concurrent access / Client threaded access to EJBs
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to sort out a design that needs capacity and short
> latency:
>
> I'm porting/converting a few corba services to EJBs: some entity
> and some stateful session.
>
> The Spec is vague and vendor docs vary from vendor for the following
> questions:
>
> Multple clients (multiple handles) concurrent access to same method:
>
> - Entity: when will the container allow concurrent calls into
> same method
>   vs sequentially queue the calls?  Or worse throw an
> exception to the 2nd
>   -Nth calls.
>
> - Stateful Session: ditto
>
> - Session: at least one vendor allows a threaded client to
> share the same
>   handle and allow concurrent calls in a session bean.  Other
> vendors throw
>   an exception on the 2nd-Nth calls...  ;(
>
> --
>
> Curt Smith
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (w) 404-237-1166 x182
>
> ==============================================================
> =============
> 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".

Reply via email to