because it would be inconsistent. If you use a statetful it means you need a state so if you have a new instance you loose your state Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-01-30 <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I have a question related to this scenario: > > >>> Hi all, given two Stateful EJBs (A and B). B is injected into A by >>> using @EJB annotation. After $minutes the container removes my >>> timed-out EJBs / 16.09.11 >>> >> org.apache.openejb.core.stateful.StatefulContainer$StatefulCacheListener >>> >>> timedOut INFO: Removing the timed-out stateful session bean instance >>> 583c10bfdbd326ba:a2c5b15:143e3aeafea:-7ffb/ >>> When I try to use EJB B in >>> A's method I get the following exception *javax.ejb.NoSuchEJBException: >>> Not Found* then, if I try again, I get: *javax.ejb.NoSuchEJBException: >>> reference is invalid for B* Even using lookup same exceptions are >>> returned. Is there any way to avoid this problem without annotate my >>> EJBs with @StatefulTimeout(value = -1)? > > > Why won't the container re-create the EJB Session, that is, give me a new > instance of the same Stateful reference? > > I'd like to have a business process state stored in a SFSB, but give it a > timeout, so they won't last too long fo inactive users. But I'd like also to > have the option to restart the process anew. I can't find a way to do this > using SFSB. > > > []s, Fernando Lozano >
