Looks like this is casting doubts on the validity of the Home-cache pattern - since it won't scale very well with a synchronized bottleneck. I agree with you though; I can't for the life of me think what this shared resource is that's in contention?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Loney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 25 October 2001 21:18 > To: Tim Fox; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: EJBHome and thread safety > > > I'm curious where the potential for EjbHome resource contention lies. > AFAIK the stub is a stateless invoker that simply routes marshalled > objects. What is a scenario whereby two threads conflict over a stub? > > Regarding a spec reference, the RemoteStub is a RemoteObject and > according to the RMI spec Sec. 3.2: > > "A method dispatched by the RMI runtime to a remote object > implementation may or may not execute in a separate thread. The RMI > runtime makes no guarantees with respect to mapping remote object > invocations to threads. Since remote method invocation on the same > remote object may execute concurrently, a remote object implementation > needs to make sure its implementation is thread-safe." > > There are no EJB guarantees on the client stub and the above suggests > that in the absence of a guarantee otherwise it cannot be assumed > thread-safe. > > Fred Loney > Spirited Software, Inc. > www.spiritedsw.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:11 AM > Subject: Re: EJBHome and thread safety > > > > I'm not doubting you, but can you tell us how you came to the > conclusion > > that the EJBHome stub is not thread-safe? > > > > It's just that, if true, I have lots of code to rewrite (the > Home-cache > > pattern is very popular) :( > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian McCallion > > > Sent: 25 October 2001 15:11 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: EJBHome and thread safety > > > > > > > > > > Laurel Neustadter wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sanjeev: > > > > > > > > Isn't there a difference between a stub to the Home object > > > being thread-safe > > > > and the Home object itself being thread-safe? That is, the > > > latter doesn't > > > > imply the former. It seems the issue here is whether the stub > > > is thread-safe. > > > > > > You are correct. The actual EJBHome object on the server is not > > > important - > > > indeed, depending on the application server, there may be no > > > EJBHome class at > > > all. > > > > > > > > > ======================================== > > > Ian McCallion > > > Alexis Systems Limited > > > Romsey, UK > > > Tel: +44 1794 514883 > > > Fax: +44 1794 501692 > > > ======================================== > > > > > > ================================================================== > > > ========= > > > 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". > > > =========================================================================== 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".
