[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Issues with passivation of nested SFSBs

[wolfc]

Again, why share life cycle?

What is supposed to happen in the following scenario:

SFSB A:
@EJB B beanB;
  | getB() { return B };

SFSB C:
B ref;
  | void setB(A beanA) { ref = beanA.getB(); }
  | void incrementB(B beanB) { ref.increment(); }

Client:
@EJB A beanA;
  | @EJB C beanC;
  | void iAmDoingSomething() { 
  |   beanC.setB(beanA); 
  |   beanA.remove();
  |   beanC.incrementB();
  | }

I think it should work. So each SFSB has an independent life cycle.
(I still don't see the problem why they can't have an independent life cycle.)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4007997#4007997

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4007997