On 21 Apr 00, at 10:01, Kenneth D. Litwak wrote:
Hi, Ken,
> As I understand it, CMP relates ONLY to entity beans.
This is true.
A container, according
> to the spec, has no responsibility regarding the persistence of session beans.
This can be true, if the container chooses. However, most
containers (all good ones, I think) will provide persistence of
stateful session beans to manage the working set in memory. This
is provided for in the specification, where it is called passivation.
> I think there are some vendors who may save session data so that in case of a
> crash it might be recoverable (is taht ture?), but that's not part ofthe spec.
The specification provides for passivation, which can then be used
by the container in a portable manner between transactions to
provide for some degree of recoverability. The specification does
not prescribe how the container should provide services such as
session state recovery. Vendors are expected to compete in this
area.
> Session beans are completley unrelated to CMP, right?
Again, this is true.
-Dan
I'm asking because I read
> something yesterday which seemed to imply otherwise. Thanks.
>
>
> Ken
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
>
===========================================================================
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".
