As requested, I've added this issue and these emails to the existing bug 780746, however, I don't think that these bugs are quite exactly the same. The other user wasn't even using the Handle.getEJBObject() call, which appears to be the cause of my woes.
Anyways, take a look at the info I added in there, and if you deem it necessary, I'll file a new bug.
If you need anything else, just holler.
Russ
Scott M Stark wrote:
This is related to an issue: [ 780746 ] Unable to passivate due
that has not had a good testcase. Provide this info in that bug
report and I'll look into it again.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell
Chan
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 12:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [JBoss-user] Possible bug in Handle.getEJBObject() - Jboss
3.2.3
Hi,
I've been wrestling with this problem for a little while.
Environment: JBoss 3.2.3, Sun JDK 1.4.2_01 on linux (debian)
I have a stateful bean which appears to work fine for the most part. I can generally do some operations on it, within a transaction, and then remove the bean. I've set the passivation time very low (20 secs) as well as the expiry times on the bean as below:
<remover-period>10</remover-period> <overager-period>10</overager-period> <max-bean-life>60</max-bean-life> <max-bean-age>20</max-bean-age>
I've found one case however, where this can cause a problem. If I get a handle from the stateful bean, in order to use it ( possibly to put in an HTTPSession, or someother) that works fine.
Restoring the bean (and possibly activating it) from the container also works fine. HOWEVER, I have found that if the remote stub does that, OUTSIDE of a transaction context, there is a ref lock left on the stateful session bean, and from there it won't passivate properly - is this proper behaviour?? (BTW, I haven't yet tried this within a UserTransaction).
Lots of warning like this:
15:20:32,559 WARN [AbstractInstanceCache] Unable to passivate due to ctx lock, id=dpsp9lca-7 15:20:52,597 WARN [AbstractInstanceCache] Unable to passivate due to ctx lock, id=dpsp9lca-7 15:21:12,639 WARN [AbstractInstanceCache] Unable to passivate due to ctx lock, id=dpsp9lca-7
There's some more detail in the snippet of log attached.
-- -- Russell Chan, Navaho Networks Inc. 416 542 1590 x108
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
