Hi Marcus,
there is only two types of client, one that holds it own state (i.e. uses
stateless session beans) and one that doesnt, hence uses the stateful
session beans.
WAP is not my speciality, but... Does what your suggesting mean that for
every WAP client your maintaining a Stateful object inside your webserver?,
My thought was to put it in a stateful bean, which could be placed on an
alternate machine away from the webserver. Interested in your thoughts...
-Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Ahnve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Largest EJB Implementation ?
> Robert Castaneda wrote:
> >
> > A combination can be used:
> >
> > One could easily write Stateful beans as clients to the Stateless beans
to
> > be used for WAP and thin client apps, and stateful clients with
Stateless
> > Beans for transaction heavy use for scalability reasons
>
> That would result in different facades for different clients. IMHO this
> would cause a somewhat confusing architecture, and in that case I would
> prefer to have the WAP servlet keep the session for itself.
>
> /Marcus
>
> Marcus Ahnve
> Sun Java Center
> Sweden
>
>
===========================================================================
> 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".
