I simply think that it depends on the use case. IMHO to keep the timer
would help to write more robust applications. Maybe a attribute an
attribute as keep with the default value false would be a good and
backward compatible solution.
Am 28.08.13 01:10, schrieb Marina Vatkina:
> Thanks for filing the issues. GF always assumed that if the timeout
> fails repeatedly, it's a bad timeout and the timer should be removed.
> May be it wasn't very practical ;).
>
> It would be the best for the EJB spec to define the correct behavior.
>
> thanks,
> -marina