I should also determine if the implementation of commonsj.WorkManager that I am using (commonj.myfoo.de) is -- for some reason -- the problem. Will update soon. Best, Stuart
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Stuart Easterling < [email protected]> wrote: > Update: I have successfully run Romain's code and it performs as > advertised. > > However, when I deploy Romain's bean to the Tomee server, the pool has the > same problems as before: only one bean is provided to the client by the > container. > > As in the output looks like: > > >>> 35 > >>> 35 > >>> 35 > > .. and so on. > > Log output in the constructor indicates 100 beans are instantiated. The > tomee log output says: > > INFO: Created Ejb(deployment-id=foo, ejb-name=TestBean, container=foo) > > and > > INFO: Started Ejb(deployment-id=foo, ejb-name=TestBean, container=foo) > > My deployment info is as follows: > > In tomee.xml I have only: > > > <Container id="foo" type="STATELESS"> > minSize = 100 > maxSize = 100 > </Container> > > In ejb-jar.xml: > > <session> > <ejb-name>TestBean</ejb-name> > <ejb-class>org.TestBean</ejb-class> > <session-type>Stateless</session-type> > <transaction-type>Container</transaction-type> > </session> > > > Best, > Stuart > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stuart Easterling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Howard, thanks for your reply. To clarify, the singleton bean is not >> the issue: that is working fine, and as expected there is only one bean >> instantiated. I only mentioned this to clarify that I do have a workaround >> for now. : ) >> >> The problem I am having is with the stateless session bean pool. For a >> pool of 100 instances, the container is only making the last 3 instantiated >> beans available to me (for details see my previous post). >> >> In addition, the differences between the behavior of my test >> implementation and Romain's is odd: it seems the two containers are >> behaving quite differently as far as bean pooling, and I am wondering if >> this might help explain the problem with my container/pool. >> >> Best, >> Stuart >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Stuart, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Stuart Easterling < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Romain, I think I may need to do that (my current workaround is to >>> use a >>> > singleton bean and many threads, but I'd like to get my pool working >>> too : >>> > ). >>> > >>> >>> you seem to want to know the difference between the behavior/execution of >>> your code and Romain's code. you mentioned 'singleton bean and many >>> threads', above. did you share your singleton bean code already in this >>> thread? sorry if i missed that. >>> >>> i'm asking/responding, as you asked if anyone seen this behavior before >>> (in >>> their app). the only time, I've seen similar behavior is with my >>> singleton >>> beans... the latest (or only) instantiated singleton bean...is >>> used/referenced. >>> >> >> >
