Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <E1AFB934-5882-4D5F-9F39-9A29B0D92D61@visi.com>
References: <1F5F68F5-2E35-4AAF-B90B-072081D34FE7@gmail.com>
 <44042DE9.2080203@mortbay.com>
 <F10E5C28-9354-4C62-84B8-2FA718F27720@iq80.com>
 <4406A4CA.7080501@mortbay.com>
 <8BD915E8-7E9B-423C-BAE0-30848C10DA49@iq80.com>
 <440855A4.4060406@mortbay.com>
 <50B7DE47-82DB-4F5B-AD61-2B2AACC1AE35@iq80.com>
 <440BF78E.2000802@mortbay.com>
 <79A344F8-8D67-4957-81FD-A1698EC86101@iq80.com>
 <C23DD45A-4ACB-4A9A-AB10-E5CBAD01E7D7@visi.com>
 <441034D7.3030809@coredevelopers.net>
 <E1AFB934-5882-4D5F-9F39-9A29B0D92D61@visi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <81F91B7E-FC3D-4A8C-A7E2-EC5E7BADF216@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Summary?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:10:23 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

On Mar 13, 2006, at 6:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
>
>> Is it possible for one client to pass the handle of an SFSB to  
>> another ? Does the spec touch on this ? Does it ever happen ?
>
> I know that per spec, the client identity cannot change mid- 
> transaction.  Aside from that we allow it.

My experience is that a SFSB is almost always tied to a single client  
(e.g. user).  I have seen a few weird pieces of code that passed  
SFSBs between clients, but the reason I was looking at them was  
because that didn't work reliably.  This is largely due to  
EJB2.1:7.5.8 which states:

Clients are not allowed to make concurrent calls to a stateful  
session object. If a client-invoked business method is in progress on  
an instance when another client-invoked call, from the same or  
different client, arrives at the same instance of a stateful session  
bean class, the container may throw the java.rmi.RemoteException to  
the second client[7] if the client is a remote client, or the  
javax.ejb.EJBException if the client is a local client. This  
restriction does not apply to a stateless session bean because the  
container routes each request to a different instance of the session  
bean class.

For the weird cases, we could add an option in the EJB container to  
not keep a specific SFSB deployment in the client session.

-dain