Jonathan Weedon wrote:
> Dave,
>
> <vendor>
>
> Sorry to be yet another voice disagreeing with you, but I strongly
> feel that what you are suggesting is wrong, and the more arguments
> against what you say, the less likely that users will follow your
> advise.
>
> There are two flaws in your statement:
>
> 1) You make the claim that composing a list by accessing N entity
> beans requires that N entity beans be in memory at any given time.
> This is incorrect. The EJB 1.1 spec allows for entity beans to be
> passivated during a transaction. A sophisticated container
> implementation will take advantage of this by having a "working set"
> of entity beans in memory at any given time. If you are working
> through a large number of rows, the container can simply passivate
> entity beans that were viewed previously in the transaction, and then
> those same bean instances can be activated later to represent a
> different row in the list. Thus, any size list can be view using a
> finite number of beans (that is, where the total number of beans in
> memory is smaller than the list size). In fact, one can view the
> whole list using a single entity bean, if memory is that scarce.
> Typically, it isn't.
>
Do you use bean passivation during transactions for BMP entities or only CMP
entities. Just curious. I'm assuming its just for CMP since you would need to
manage the instance variable's state if you did it for BMP, which would probably
cause a performance degradation over simply using more bean instances.
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 2nd Edition
Published by O'Reilly & Associates
http://www.EjbNow.com
===========================================================================
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".
