I'm not thinking of pure ejb per se, but maybe I have a session bean that
wants to do a long query and at the same time be scraping data from another
external source. No reason to do io bound operations in sequence.

Another really is making a service, such as a kind of data source etc,
natural for one service with multiple threads.

Maybe I'm not saying all this correctly. Within a true transaction, of
course you want a known sequence, but I wasn't intending to imply
transactions. But even there, the return of particular method could easily
be an aggregate of two long transactions that really are separate anyway
(say one sub-transaction for posting to an invoice, another posting to an
audit log, which aren't coupled tightly).

rick


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Can an ejb function as a daemon?


> I'd like to see a concrete example where you need several threads to be
> working within the same transaction concurrently.  Thinking about it it
> seems to me that it might work ok if each thread only talked to one
> resource manager (db) but that there would be no way to expect
reproducible
> results if 2 threads worked on one resource manager. (thread A writes data
> d, thread B reads d.  Results depend on who goes first).  In any case it
> seems to me that allowing multiple threads on one transaction can at best
> reduce latency/request while doing nothing for throughput.
>
> I think this was one of the simplifications adopted by ejbs to make
> distributed computing comprehensible...so far I still think its
reasonable.
>
> Still, I'd like to see a scenario.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On 2002.09.22 12:56:38 -0400 Rick LaBanca wrote:
> > I agree with those reasons I suppose. If the need of safely doing multi
> > threads within one ejb call were realized, the spec could accomodate
them
> > (if the consituents you mention are worrying about multi thread issues,
> > an
> > api to give concrete hints toward the state would actually help).
> >
> > Anyway, all I know is when I first started learning about ejb's, I found
> > it
> > a sorely lacking thing, especially in the area of services. I guess I am
> > a
> > purist, I really want them to achieve a nice generic platform and not
> > have
> > to do things outside j2ee for services, database etc.. I guess with
> > mbeans
> > being rolled in that would help (now if only cmp relations!)
> >
> > rick
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Can an ejb function as a daemon?
> >
> >
> > > Another reason might be that transaction and security contexts may not
> > be
> > > propagated to the child threads.  Also, the jca 1.5 spec goes to some
> > pains
> > > to prevent 2 threads that import the same transaction from running at
> > once:
> > > in general the effects of running several threads within one
> > transaction
> > > may be difficult to predict, and I think it is appropriate to
> > internally
> > > prevent more than one thread working within a transaction as well.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > > On 2002.09.22 09:30:42 -0400 Rick LaBanca wrote:
> > > > I think a session bean doing threads is not encouraged, but
accessing
> > > > something else that happens to be threaded could be ok. In my
testing
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > ok in jboss right now anyway, I do spawn off threads for multiple
> > > > requests.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't understand the restriction anyway. So long as your
> > > > response
> > > > to a call in a session bean blocks until all internal threads are
> > done,
> > I
> > > > can't see why the server would care.
> > > >
> > > > I think what they mean to restrict is a bean spawning a thread, then
> > > > returning he original call while it runs. Then the container could
> > try
> > to
> > > > passivate something really running. So using threads within one
> > blocking
> > > > call of a bean should be safe. Wish it was clearer.
> > > >
> > > > In fact I wish they would just allow it for those that need it in
the
> > > > case I
> > > > mentioned too. All they need do is has a call to either poll a bean
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > if it's active or not, or have the bean do callbacks to indicate
when
> > > > it's
> > > > idle (no threads running).
> > > >
> > > > Rick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Isn't accessing threading facilities a no no in session beans? If
> > you
> > > > > have a deamon like service then I assume that it's multi threaded,
> > so
> > > > is
> > > > > calling your singleton in effect breaking the ejb rules?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do other people deal with this. I've recently had the need to
> > > > access
> > > > > a file based content store from session beans and considered
> > creating
> > a
> > > > > jca module. Is this the right way to do it?
> > > > >
> > > > > -k.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > JBoss-user mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> JBoss-user mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to