Thank you Linda. Should the spec say something as well?
-marina
On 12/15/12 2:07 PM, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
> This was discussed in the EJB 3.1 expert group, which went back and
> forth over the
> handling of the SFSB case. I don't know whether its presence at the
> time of the
> EJB 3.1 release was intentional or not. However, it is harmless, and
> cannot be
> removed.
>
> -Linda
>
>
> On 12/14/2012 6:47 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Experts,
>>
>> ejb-jar xsd and the javadoc for the ConcurrencyManagement annotation
>> say that the concurrency management type can be
>> specified on a SFSB, but if specified, only Container is allowed ([1]
>> and [2]).
>>
>> Is it intentional? What's the purpose of it if it is? There is
>> nothing in the spec itself that describes this option.
>>
>> I think it should be removed until we add concurrency management
>> options to the SFSBs.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> -marina
>>
>> [1]<xsd:complexType name="concurrency-management-typeType">
>> <xsd:annotation>
>> <xsd:documentation>
>>
>> The concurrency-management-typeType specifies the way concurrency
>> is managed for a singleton or stateful session bean.
>>
>> The concurrency management type must be one of the following:
>>
>> Bean
>> Container
>>
>> Bean managed concurrency can only be specified for a singleton bean.
>>
>> </xsd:documentation>
>>
>> [2] " This annotation may be applied to stateful session beans, but
>> doing so has no impact on the semantics of
>> concurrency management for such beans. The concurrency management
>> type for bean-managed concurrency (|BEAN|) does not
>> apply to stateful session beans."
>