Hi,
I don�t know if now there is someone (Toby, are you?)using SQLJ inside an
EJB with JBoss. we had in production an EJB with SQLJ (stateless, making
INSERTS, DELETES and UPDATES). We are using JBoss 2.2.1, and now we have moved
it to JDBC. We had a memory problem (there are another reasinos for the
moving...). JBoss was gettitng more and more memory, until the system gets
collapsed.
We don�t know why. Any idea?
Another question is that it seems that the sentences are making deadlocks
in Oracle Database. If the database table is only accessed from the EJB, why
does it happen? Aren�t all the SQL serialized?
Thanks!
Jose R.
Toby Allsopp wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:40:51AM +0200, Jose Ramon Diaz wrote:
> > Hi Toby!
> >
> > Thanks a lot! You were right...
>
> Excellent. I'm responsible for adding some SQLJ to the product at work, so
> I'm glad to see it working for other people.
>
> > If anybody is interested the code looks like:
> >
> > DataSource ds = (DataSource) ctx.lookup("java:/OraclePool");
> > c = ds.getConnection();
> > DefaultContext cc = new DefaultContext(c);
> >
> > #sql [cc] { begin... select... }
> >
> > In this way the connections are not shared beetweten calls to the EJB.
>
> I'm still concerned about this variable "c". It's not declared in that
> bit of code, so it looks like it's a member field of the bean class. I'd
> make it a local variable unless you have a really good reason.
>
> Toby.
>
> _______________________________________________
> JBoss-user mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
