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."
attached mail follows: