> "WJCarpenter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I believe using ThreadLocal will make the code technically ineligible >> for use by EJBs, but I don't know if there are any EJB containers >> which enforce that. > > Hmm .. interesting. I thought it was our WebSphere guys who suggested > the thread local solution .. and obviously they breathe EJBs. Bill, can > you confirm/deny this pls?
Have a look at the EJB 2.0 spec, Appendix C, section C.1.2, "Programming Restrictions": An enterprise Bean must not use thread synchronization primitives to synchronize execution of multiple instances. I was imagining that the ThreadLocal implementation must have some synchronization in it, but now that I think about it, maybe that's not a necessity. (Regardless, billions of 3rd party packages have at least the occasional use of "syncrhonized", and you can't generally sniff that out except via JavaDocs. So, my intuition is that most app servers don't enforce this. Hence, my waffly "tecnically ineligible".) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:soap-dev-unsubscribe@;xml.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:soap-dev-help@;xml.apache.org>
