Thanks for your reply Avi.
<<have no client-related state, but may maintain their own state.>>
I am aware of this. It does not however answer my question. Why not just
have ONE instance serve ALL clients? Why bother with the pool at all?
Dave Ford
Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
http://www.smart-soft.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Avi Kivity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Dave Ford'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: Why pool stateless session beans?
> Stateless session beans are not stateless. They may have no client-related
> state, but may maintain their own state. This was discussed many times,
> suggest you browse the archives.
>
>
> - Avi
> --
> This signature intentionally left blank.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 06:28
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Why pool stateless session beans?
> >
> >
> > I asked this question once before, but never got a very
> > satisfying answer.
> > Why not just have one instance? What is the benefit of
> > pooling stateless
> > session beans?
> >
> > Dave Ford
> > Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
> > http://www.smart-soft.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".
> >
===========================================================================
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".
