well that is true, but what is useful is the "timeout", the slew of messages
saying "Transaction waiting" seem to panic people
we don't like panicking people
marc
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nortje, Andrew
|Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:44 AM
|To: 'jBoss'
|Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] Possible Entity Bean Deadlock?
|
|
|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]
|
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
