Hi!
Dan OConnor wrote:
> Did you notice how it describes how an entity bean might get
> "pinned" against a single server in the cluster? Did you understand
> this? It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Well, Tyler means well, but is not a guru (sorry Tyler, if you're
reading this). It doesn't make sense, especially in light of EJB 2.0 CMP
which can transfer state pretty efficiently as necessary.
> A clustered entity would use commit option "C", right?
Not necessarily. It could use A with a decent EJB 2.0 CMP implementation
that was cluster-aware.
> So the
> claim that it would be too expensive to have multiple copies of the
> same entity seemed obviously false.
Yes, indeed. See above.
> However, I can envision many
> scenarios where a stateful session bean might get pinned to a
> server. Do you think this is what he was reaching for?
Well, stateful sessions can be transferred just as easily between
servers, in a linearly scaleable way, so that doesn't apply either.
The article is a decent stepping stone, but don't use it as a foundation
of a large construction, if you see what I mean.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
