I received several "no"'s internally for the change. Unless somebody has
a very strong reason to tighten the spec, I'll leave it as-is for now.
thanks,
-marina
On 3/11/13 1:54 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>