EricJava wrote : Waitaminute, looking at the JBoss Seam book (an official
JBoss publication), by Michael Yuan and Thomas Heute, on page 320:
|
| anonymous wrote : However, Seam POJO components are stateful and have a
conversational scope by default.
|
| When you say request scoped
EricJava wrote : However, Seam POJO components are stateful and have a
conversational scope by default.
Yes, the book is wrong here. This is one of quite a few revisions for the
Second Edition. A preview is coming soon. Stay tuned!
View the original post :
Pete and Jacob, thanks for the info on that. That clarifies a lot of things.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4124183#4124183
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4124183
vladimir.kovalyuk wrote : 1. Does JPA persistence context propagation rules
work for Seam-managed conversation-scoped Beans?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
| No, they are different. JPA persistence context propagation rules are
complex. SMPC propgation is simple. You will get the same PC for the
EricJava wrote : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : anonymous wrote : If I put just
@Name, it's a POJO, and you're saying it's request scoped?
| |
| | Yes.
|
| Waitaminute, looking at the JBoss Seam book (an official JBoss
publication), by Michael Yuan and Thomas Heute, on page 320:
|
msystems wrote : Must be an error ! Seam POJO's are default EVENT (request)
scoped and not conversation or temp. conversation scoped.
Indeed:
http://docs.jboss.org/seam/2.0.1.CR2/reference/en/html/concepts.html
anonymous wrote : By default, JavaBeans are bound to the event context.
which is
@Name @Stateful (default scope is conversation)
@Name @Stateless (default scope is event, but the bean is truly stateless)
@Name (default scope is event)
anonymous wrote : If I put just @Name, it's a POJO, and you're saying it's
request scoped?
Yes.
anonymous wrote : This still doesn't fully
At the time of starting new project I used POJO beans with ease. At some point
simple things ceased to work and got to work only after moving toward SFSB.
When I employed EntityHome I obtained stale object exception. If I understand
correctly it happened because persistence context was not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : anonymous wrote : If I put just @Name, it's a POJO,
and you're saying it's request scoped?
|
| Yes.
Waitaminute, looking at the JBoss Seam book (an official JBoss publication), by
Michael Yuan and Thomas Heute, on page 320:
anonymous wrote : However, Seam POJO
vladimir.kovalyuk wrote : 1. Does JPA persistence context propagation rules
work for Seam-managed conversation-scoped Beans?
No, they are different. JPA persistence context propagation rules are complex.
SMPC propgation is simple. You will get the same PC for the length of that
conversation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : anonymous wrote : If I put just @Name, it's a POJO,
and you're saying it's request scoped?
|
| Yes.
Ok, that clarifies things. I was using EntityHome, which is conversation
scoped (in Home.java superclass). Then I was using other POJOs and wondering,
why are
EricJava wrote : Then I was using other POJOs and wondering, why are these
things not starting conversations? Now I see. I need to put
@Scope(CONVERSATION) on them.
|
Using a conversation scoped component does not automatically make the
conversation long running.
View the original post
Which will provide better perfomance pojos or ejbs if both are being run in
JBoss AS?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4122912#4122912
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4122912
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : This is scope to the request scope by default - so
it is stateful across the request but its *not* conversational.
|
| @Name(pojo)
| | class Pojo {}
Wait, I thought conversation scope was the default scope? It is for SFSBs,
right? If I annotate my bean with
Just with @Name (see many examples).
To answer the original question - yes, EJB3 provides other things - better
performance in a cluster, provision of MDBs...
Also, running in an EJB3 container with Seam POJOs is good, as you get
container managed transasctions running behind Seam.
View the
I'm not sure, if I understood that:
AFAIK:
If you annotate any Java class with @Name, then it's a Seam component.
If you also add @Stateless: its a stateless Seam component - otherwise it's a
stateful component.
How would you declare (annnotate) your POJO-Seam component?
View the original post
I don't see how a component could be something else than statefull or stateless.
quote from the book: JBoss ® Seam: Simplicity and Power Beyond Java EE
anonymous wrote : we would not need the @Stateful annotation on the POJO. Seam
POJO components are stateful by default. And it has the default
@Stateful or @Stateless make it an EJB3 Seam component. It can be a plain Seam
component without them. Yes, you are mixing up the defaulting rules for scope
that come with @Stateful/@Stateless and the scope fo the Seam component.
View the original post :
thanks, pete
I'll try to sum up and clarify:
* this is a stateless EJB3 Seam component - it is stateless
| @Name(slsb)
| | @Stateless
| | class Slsb {}
| |
| * this is a POJO Seam component - it is stateful
| @Name(pojo)
| | class Pojo {}
| |
| * this is a stateful
This is scope to the request scope by default - so it is stateful across the
request but its *not* conversational.
@Name(pojo)
| class Pojo {}
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4121818#4121818
Reply to the post :
I was told that in JBoss anyway, the developers have spent a lot more time
optimizing EJBs. I haven't run any tests yet to confirm this though.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4121670#4121670
Reply to the post :
21 matches
Mail list logo
