users@glassfish.java.net

Re: EJBContext: thread safe?

From: Laird Nelson <ljnelson_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:10:17 -0400

That's good enough for me; I'll create it each time for now.

Best,
Laird

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:35 AM, jmilkiewicz_at_gmail.com <
jmilkiewicz_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Asfair from J2EE it was quite common to cache initial context for
> performance gains. Unfortunately to cache properly you need to tackle
> with synchronizing.
> A few years ago i did (very basic) performance tests to find out if
> caching initial context matters.The results were highly
> application-server dependent, so i would suggest measuring instead of
> guessing.
>
> br Jakub
>
>
>
> 2011/8/19 Laird Nelson <ljnelson_at_gmail.com>:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Cheng Fang <cheng.fang_at_oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Within stateless, stateful, MDB, and Singleton session beans with
> >> container-managed-concurrency and correctly specified locking metadata,
> >> don't need to use synchronized. For bean-managed-concurrency Singleton
> >> bean, yes, you will need to synchronize access to any shared resources,
> >> including IntialContext. But wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just
> use
> >> a new InitialContext?
> >
> > I'm probably working with outdated information, but the act of creating a
> > new InitialContext() used to be regarded as really heavyweight. You
> would
> > do it when you had to, but you would cache it (and thereby of course
> > introduce thread safety concerns) whenever you could. Am I hearing you
> > right that InitialContext creation is now cheap?
> >
> > Best,
> > Laird
> >
> > --
> > http://about.me/lairdnelson
> >
> >
>



-- 
http://about.me/lairdnelson