I'm not too sure if that is a good idea.
It (the message) helped me discover some problems in my design. I was in
fact causing a deadlock and jBoss "recovered" when Oracle timed out one of
the offending transactions causing the dead lock.
So jBoss is reporting correctly and the message is useful - IMHO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] Possible Entity Bean Deadlock?
>
>
> In fact I think we need to remove that message.
>
> The honest truth is that I haven't been able to reproduce a
> real deadlock in
> lab conditions, and I wonder if people call "deadlock" the
> normal "WAITING"
> condition, i.e the bean is under load and all is normal.
>
> I say this because of the "well it seems the container
> recovers" :) well, it
> means the container is just handling your calls ;-)
>
> but we never know with these things. for now this message
> doesn't bring us
> developers anything and it seems to scare people that are
> doing serious
> stress tests on JBoss -> gone!
>
> marc
>
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ole Husgaard
> |Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:01 PM
> |To: jBoss
> |Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] Possible Entity Bean Deadlock?
> |
> |
> |Hi,
> |
> |Don't worry about the LOCKING-WAITING (TRANSACTION)
> |message. Like Simon said, this is simply a warning
> |that the container is waiting to avoid reentry of
> |a bean.
> |
> |Back to original topic:
> |Yes, this scenario will result in a deadlock, but
> |as soon as one of the transactions time out, the
> |other will continue and the deadlock will be over.
> |
> |
> |Best Regards,
> |
> |Ole Husgaard.
> |
> |
> |"Nortje, Andrew" wrote:
> |>
> |> I started a thread on Friday regarding the LOCKING-WAITING
> (TRANSACTION)
> |> message that jBoss issues. This may be related to that.
> |>
> |> > -----Original Message-----
> |> > From: Joshua M. White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> |> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:36 PM
> |> > To: jBoss
> |> > Subject: [jBoss-User] Possible Entity Bean Deadlock?
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > I believe the EJB standard says that if a transaction has
> |> > entity bean A
> |> > in it, no other transactions may access entity bean A
> until the first
> |> > transaction completes. Is this the default behavior on
> jboss? If not
> |> > default, is it an option. This leads me to the question - If
> |> > I have one
> |> > transaction that grabs entity bean A while another
> transaction grabs
> |> > entity bean B, and then the first transaction tries to get
> |> > entity bean B
> |> > while the second transaction tries to get entity bean A,
> will that
> |> > result in deadlock? Or is the appserver smart enough to
> not even let
> |> > this happen in the first place?
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > --
> |> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> |> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> > List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> >
> |>
> |> --
> |> --------------------------------------------------------------
> |> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |> List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> |
> |--
> |--------------------------------------------------------------
> |To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
