trying to inject one stateless ejb bean into another stateless ejb bean. all stateless beans can inject successfully in flow. but for only one stateless ejb getting below error while loading.
JBAS014590: Unexpected Error
Related
In a container environment (such as wildfly, jboss), are servlets treated as Managed bean? i.e. Can I inject the Servlet into any other CDI bean?
I use CdiRunner CDI-Unit to write my tests. And therefore I would like to inject Servlet into my Test class and test its (public) methods.
The lifecycle of a servlet if managed by the servlet container and not by CDI. However, CDI injection is expected to work in servlets.
A servlet container will also provide some built-in beans that can be injected using CDI:
A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of
which have qualifier #Default:
a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest, allowing
injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest
a bean with bean type javax.servlet.http.HttpSession, allowing
injection of a reference to the HttpSession
a bean with bean type javax.servlet.ServletContext, allowing injection
of a reference to the ServletContext
If you need to inject a servlet somewhere, you are probably doing something wrong.
I have a logging bean where I log how long database calls and bean method calls take via interceptors.
I have a bean that calls two #Asynchronous methods. Those two #Asynchronous methods call the database and are intercepted.
When the logging bean logs though, it appears that the database has taken 0 ms which can't be right. When I use this logging bean and all the interceptors without #Asynchronous calls everything works fine.
I'm using glassfish 3.1.2.2. The doc http://glassfish.java.net/nonav/docs/v3/api/javax/enterprise/context/RequestScoped.html says "The request context is destroyed: after the asynchronous observer notification completes," Does that mean that my logging bean instance in the #Asynchronous method is destroyed when the method completes? What can I use to accomplish my goal?
There are multiple layers:
A CDI proxy, which runs CDI interceptors and then calls the EJB.
An EJB proxy, which schedules async work and returns immediately.
EJB interceptors, which run on the async thread.
Presumably, you're using a CDI interceptor, which is measuring the time it takes for the EJB container to schedule the async work. If you switch to using an EJB interceptor instead (i.e., annotate the EJB method with #Interceptors), then you can measure the time taken to execute the work.
For messaging system/ handling message - use MDB; don't use Entity Bean or Session Bean. Please provide me the reason.
Thanks in Adv
RW
An MDB is designed to accept messages whereas the others aren't. From an old Sun tutorial but still the same in the up to date version
The most visible difference between message-driven beans and session
and entity beans is that clients do not access message-driven beans
through interfaces. Interfaces are described in the section Defining
Client Access with Interfaces. Unlike a session or entity bean, a
message-driven bean has only a bean class
and
Session beans allow you to send JMS messages and to receive them
synchronously but not asynchronously. To avoid tying up server
resources, do not to use blocking synchronous receives in a
server-side component; in general, JMS messages should not be sent or
received synchronously. To receive messages asynchronously, use a
message-driven bean.
In other words: in a Session bean you can only receive a message when the bean was called. The app server will automatically call the onMessage method of the MDB attached to the destination (Queue or Topic) on which a message was received. This means that MDBs will be guaranteed to handle each message as soon it's available, something that you can't guarantee with session beans.
I have a #Stateful EJB annotated as #ConversationScoped. The client (JSF) makes a request to my EJB which: starts the conversation - conversation.begin(), do something and shows the response to the client.
The client then makes another request, the EJB does something and closes the conversation - conversation.end().
Is the #Stateful EJB removed after the conversation end? Or do I have to explicitly call #Remove?
The CDI specs say that the scoped EJBs are automatically created and destroyed when the scope is created or destroyed. The same is true for the Conversation scope. So, you should not try to call a #Remove method.
http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.0/html/concepts.html#d0e1066
We all know that in the web tier there is the possibility that only a single instance of a given Servlet exists which services multiple requests. This can lead to threading issues in instance variables.
My question is, is it safe to inject an EJB using the #EJB annotation into a servlet as an instance variable?
My initial instinct would be no, under the assumption that the same instance of the EJB would service multiple requests at the same time. It would seem that this would also be the instinct of a number of other programmers: Don't inject to servlets
However have I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Clearly what is injected into the servlet is a proxy, under the hood does the container actually service each request with a different instance and maintain thread safety? As this forum would suggest: Do inject to servlets
There seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions. WHICH IS CORRECT???
It is safe to inject an EJB in a Servlet as a Servlet instance variable, as long as the EJB is Stateless. You MUST NEVER inject a Stateful Bean in a Servlet.
You must implement your EJB stateless in that it doesn't hold any instance variable which itself holds a stateful value (like Persistence Context). If you need to use the persistence context, then you must get an instance of it IN the methods of the EJB. You can do that by having a PersistenceContextFactory as a EJB instance Variable and then you get an instance of the entity manager from the Factory in the method of the EJB.
The PersistenceContextFactory is thread-safe, thus it can be injected in an instance variable.
As long as you comply to the above mentioned rules, it should be thread-safe to inject a Stateless Bean in a Servlet
Your reference "Don't inject to servlets" mentions nothing about ejbs or #ejb annotation. It talks about not thread safe objects such as PersistenceContext.
Per EJB spec you can access ejbs from variety of remote clients including servlets (EJB 3.0 Specification (JSR-220) - Section 3.1). Injecting ejb using #EJB annotation is a method of obtaining EJB interface via dependency injection (section 3.4.1) which is alternative to looking up ejb objects in the JNDI namespace. So there is nothing special about #EJB annotation with respect to EJBs obtained.
So, based on EJB 3.0 Spec, it's a standard practice to obtain ejbs from servlets using #EJB annotation.
It's a mixed bag.
Stateless session beans may be injected and are safe. This is because even if a single instance of a stub is used, access to the methods will be serialized by the container.
I think what inferreddesign says is not true. It doesn't matter if the stateless session bean uses a persistence context. Only one caller will ever access a single bean instance at the same time, so even though the persistence context is not thread safe, the EJB guards against multiple access to it. Think of it as if every session bean method has the synchronized keyword applied to it.
The main problem with injecting an EJB in a Servlet I think is performance. The single stub instance will become a major area of contention when multiple requests are queuing up while waiting for a session bean method to be executed for them.
I think the simple answer is that you aren't guaranteed that it is safe.
The reason for this is that there is nothing explicit in the EJB specification that says EJB home interfaces have to be thread safe. The spec outlines the behaviour of the server side part only. What you will probably find is that the client skeletons are actually thread safe but you would need to look at how they are implemented by the library you are using. The annotation part will just expand into a service locator so that doesn't buy you anything.