<to_lazy_to_read_source>
is it a debug message? Else why not turned into that kind of message?
</to_lazy_to_read_source>
/Lennart
marc fleury skrev:
>
> 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]
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.benefit.se/english
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
