Hey Marc,
> Yes do remove the bean...
Done in CVS.
> but we were seeing more bugs
> yesterday under heavy
> load... we need to work some more on the cache.
Mmhh. I'll repost a comment I've made some times ago regarding the lock
mechanism, and since I got no answer from you I thought you meant to leave
things as they are, but maybe it can help to discover bugs.
BTW, what kind of bugs ? Does it apply to stateful and entity or only one of
them ?
> Basically
> the benchs would
> go through with cache and no LRU
? What does this mean ?
Simon
>
> marc
>
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bordet, Simone
> |Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:11 AM
> |To: 'jBoss'
> |Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] NotSerializableException
> |
> |
> |Hey,
> |
> |> |Thank you for the hint. I mixed up the attribute with the
> |> session context.
> |> |What I also found appart from the fact that my code was
> |> wrong is, that in
> |> |case this type of error arrises, i observed two things:
> |> |
> |> |1 - If I made a high number of calls, there came a
> situation when the
> |> |server seemed to run in a loop writing the exceptions from my
> |> |previous message.
> |> |I only was able to stop him by CTRL-C.
> |>
> |>
> |> mmmmm
> |>
> |> one thing we should make sure is that a Passivation that
> "fails" still
> |> removes the bean from memory...
> |>
> |> it seems they are not removed and they keep on bugging you
> |>
> |> flag this is bugzilla for me please
> |>
> |> marc
> |
> |As it is now, the bean is kept in memory if passivation
> fails on purpose.
> |I'm not sure that I want my beans to be removed by the
> container if they're
> |not passivatable, since then I have to recreate them loosing
> their state
> |(basically for a container activity that may or not happen
> (passivation) I
> |would have different behavior for my bean if I remove them
> when passivation
> |fails). The spec is not so clear on this (EJB 1.1, 6.4.1)
> |
> |"The container may destroy a session bean instance if the
> instance does not
> |meet the requirements for
> |serialization after ejbPassivate."
> |
> |We *may* destroy, but IMHO also we may keep it and let the
> client go on and
> |finally remove it. The bean implementor can correct the
> serialization bug
> |later (because, at the end, this is: a bug from the bean developer).
> |
> |Marc, let me know if you want to remove the bean or not,
> it's a simple
> |change.
> |
> |Bye
> |
> |Simon
> |
> |
> |--
> |--------------------------------------------------------------
> |To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> |
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
