Why eliminate the option?
Carlo
On 03/11/2013 05:40 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Thanks Florent.
>
> Experts,
>
> Should we tighten the spec so that it does not give a wrong impression
> that there is an option for an embeddable container to have more than
> one instance in the same VM at the same time?
>
> Please reply "yes" to tighten
> "no" to keep it as-is.
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
>
> On 3/10/13 12:41 AM, Florent BENOIT wrote:
>> sequentially
>>
>> Florent
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Marina Vatkina
>> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Florent,
>>
>> Concurrently or sequentially?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/13 1:09 AM, Florent BENOIT wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We support more than one container in the same VM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Marina Vatkina
>>> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Experts,
>>>
>>> The EJB spec (see 18.2.4Embeddable Container Shutdown) says
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> "An embeddable Container Provider is only required to
>>> support one active embeddable EJB container at a time per
>>> JVM. Attempts to concurrently create multiple active
>>> embeddable EJB containers may result in a container
>>> initialization error."
>>>
>>> The RI allows to create containers only sequentially.
>>>
>>> Question for those of you who *produce* embeddable EJB
>>> containers: do you *support* more than one container in the
>>> same VM?
>>>
>>> Question for those of you who *use* embeddable EJB
>>> containers: do you *use* more than one container in the same VM?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>