|
From: Alef A. <al...@jt...> - 2004-03-08 23:43:13
|
> As for passivation/activation, it's not an issue for > stateless beans, as those are not legal states. Oops, you're right. It seems like I'm already forgetting some of that horrible stuff I've been using for the last 3 years (of which I'm glad ;-). By the way, I was looking for that really big warning you had put up in the SingletonBeanFactoryLocator (wasn't it), but couldn't find it anymore. No warnings anymore ;-)? Alef > For stateful beans, you > will get an unload and reload on the passivation/activation, but this is > not for real if there is already a shared instance, all that will be > unloaded/reloaded is the reference to the shared context/beanfactory. > > Regards, > Colin > > > Alef Arendsen wrote: > > >>Looking at the code for the EJB base classes, unless I'm missing > >>something obvious (not unheard of), it seems that by default a separate > >>bean factory is created for each bean instance. > >> > >> > >Well, to put it bluntly: you're not mistaken; it's the way it is. > > > >As far as I'm concerned, the issue basically is that without violated any > >rules that apply to implementing EJBs, it's just not possible to get an > >ApplicationContext shared across multiple multiple beans of different > types, > >not even across multiple instances of the same type. > > > >For one because resources instantiated as fields of EJBs should either be > >serializable (which the ApplicationContext isn't, not even mentioning any > >beans inside it), or transient (or closed and thrown away on > passivation). > > > >Another solution would be (and I hate to say this, but this is what we're > >currently using in one of our applications that is still based on EJBs > but > >in the process of being migrated to Spring) to bind the context in a JNDI > >tree, but here, the Serializable argument also applies. So that (when > >applying the rules really strict) is one to throw away as well. > > > >Of course when using certain EJB container, you won't have to worry about > >serializable issues when not accessing the JNDI from outside the VM the > >server is running in. Also, having the ApplicationContext defined as a > >singleton or something (ughh!) wouldn't result in too many problems using > a > >simple EJB container, but I guess that's not really an option we (Spring) > >are eager to offer. The same applies to providing an approach based on > >static fields. > > > >Ohh, there is something like the BeanFactoryLocator, but this only reads > in > >BeanFactory I believe. > > > >Basically my approach is to avoid the use EJBs where possible and if > needed, > >implement an EJB using Spring's EJB layer and don't worry about one or > two > >applicationcontexts too much being created. I mean, afterall, one of the > >reasons I choose Spring in the first place is to be able to get rid of > EJBs. > >(I won't start a rant here, that might just be personal ;-). > > > >I don't know if this satisfies or if somebody else has opinions? > > > >Alef > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > >Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > >GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > >administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > >_______________________________________________ > >Springframework-developer mailing list > >Spr...@li... > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Springframework-developer mailing list > Spr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer |