I have not seen this problem again... so far. I am running larger tests to
confirm.
--jason
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason
> > Dillon
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:36 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] ejbLoad() on a modified bean w/o ejbStore()
> >
> >
> > > I'm going to combine multiple email replies into one. Please
> > switch back to
> > > QueuedPessimisticEJBLock. We're trying to make this the
> > default for JBoss
> > > since it scales better.
> >
> > Ok. I was not sure if one was more stable than the other.
> >
> > > > I am using commit option B, since it might be possible that
> > > > another process
> > > > is using the database... though I am 100% sure that I have
> > sole access to
> > > > the database I am using.
> > >
> > > You probably already know this but ejbLoad will get called whenever the
> > > entity becomes part of the transaction
> >
> > I figured that much, but I was not really sure.
> >
> > > > If I run the first producer with the first MDB offline, then
> > > > connect the MDB
> > > > everything seems to be fine. I have run a few tests through in
> > > > this manner
> > > > and I have not had problem yet, where as if I try to have the both up
> > > > together it will work only once after all nodes have been started
> > > > (usually)
> > > > and will fail most times after that.
> > > >
> > > > I should be able to have more than one thread update a single
> > > > entity at the
> > > > same time (or rather ordered as the container dictates) right?
> > >
> > > By "more than one thread" you mean more than one transaction?
> > Yes, you can
> > > have more than one transaction, but remember, this is
> > pessimistic locking.
> > > The entity will be locked until the transaction commits. All
> > other accesses
> > > to the entity will be blocked until the entity is committed by the first
> > > transaction.
> >
> > That is not the behavior that I was seeing, perhaps your change to Queued*
> > fixed that. Not sure at the moment. I think I did find one rather large
>
> The Queued* bug fix should show the behaviour I talked about above. Let me
> know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
