>
> it doesn't have to be another JVM. Just a legacy application
> (there are a lot of them still around) that updates the entity bean table.
>Sorry to be repetitive here (just to make sure it is perfectly clear):
>passivation does not affect cache consistency with regard to legacy
>applications using the database at the same time as the EJB-server. This
>is dealt with by calling ejbLoad at appropriate times (at transaction
>start for example).
So cached instance beans , refresh their state from the database in ejbLoad.
so much for caching then. :)
> >But that doesn't mean every container should throw away each instance >
as soon as the transaction is completed.
>> I agree but the products that I have used do exactly that and I am
> trying to find justification as to why they do it.
>WLS 4.5.1 doesn't (if you configure it correctly...).
Lets agree to disagree on this one. Another poster reported here
earlier that IBM WebSphere too passivates after transaction completes.
> It isn't about load balancing. It is about the container offering
> cached active bean instance state without guaranteeing that the
> state is a true representation of what is currently in the database
> (and committed). If your instance is kept active beyond transactions,
> when does instance state get refreshed from the database.
>As above, in such cases ejbLoad is called upon transaction begin, or to
>be very precise: when the instance is first enlisted in the transaction
>as a resource.
As above, what's the point of caching if you refresh every time.
Regards,
Hamid
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
