I can see that Handle stores the reference to the beans. But how its useful for clients calling this ejb?
What are the things that clients can achieve by getting the Handle to the ejb bean?
In RMI-IIOP, a remote reference (stub) needs to be connected to an ORB instance to be usable. If you serialize and deserialize a stub yourself using ObjectOutputStream/ObjectInputStream to store in a file or database, then the deserialized stub will be disconnected, and attempting to use it will fail. If Handle and HomeHandle are serialized instead of the reference itself, then the EJB spec requires them to use the environment's HandleDelegate, which has a reference to the server's ORB instance, so the remote reference can be reconnected after deserialization.
Related
I want to locally store data in absence of internet connection and thus am using job scheduler to schedule my syncing. So my service needs access to dao and I am not sure what the correct components needs to be defined for dagger to correctly inject dao inside my service. I do not know how to constructor inject in service either. I think it should not be constructor injected into the service. What is the proper approach? And lastly, which coroutine scope should i be using to access database from service? I also need retrofit api to make network calls. How should i inject them into my jobservice?
We are using ejb 2.1 to expose as a webservice using apache axis2.I have read in codebranch website that both are serverside components where in ejb can be run in more than one server unlike servlets..but I didn't get clear picture of difference.
Let me quote this old (but good) comparison.
Enterprise JavaBeans are components meant to encapsulate business logic. They do not handle presentation and have a precise set of restrictions they must obey. An EJB may not manage threads, access files with the java.io package, have a GUI, accept socket connections, or load native libraries. These restrictions are imposed because EJBs execute inside an EJB container, roughly analogous to the way servlets execute in a servlet container. Where servlets can be used to perform many arbitrary tasks, including the generation of HTML pages, EJBs are used almost entirely as business objects. A session bean represents a client for a session or transaction and an entity bean represents a persistent business object that is usually stored in a database. Unlike servlets, a single session bean may exist per client. A single servlet may serve many clients. A session bean usually mediates client access to entity beans, shielding the client from the details of managing state.
I got exact answer Both are server side entities.EJB is designed by wrapping RMI API's.EJB is a service at Enterprise level.Main advantage that EJB can be a webservice which can deployed anywhere in the world.EJB is servicelayer enity which can even used by servlets.
We can have plain java in the service layer but differance that EJB has is it(EJB) can be alone deployed in any server unlike plain-java service layer.
I am new to server side coding and JSP/servlets. I have a code which has 3 classes. 1st is a Serv class inherited from java httpservlet. In this i have doPost() method implemented. In doPost() i use object of the 2nd class ResourceClass. ResourceClass is a singleton class. Hence essentially to use any method is do something like ResourceClass.getInstance().readResource();
Now readResource furthur uses Java Native access library to read a resource from disk. Now my question is Since as i understand if 1000 clients connect to my server(Apache Tomcat) for each new request i will have a new servlet serving the request. But all these servlets will essentially use the same singleton object. Hence will this reading be thread safe.
I do not change any internal state. So i think it wont effect my output hence the whole stuff is Idempotent. But will all these requests be queued making the singleton class object a bottleneck. Or will each servlet has its own copy.
Also if i change the Resource state then in that case will it be thread safe.
First of all, you won't have a new servlet for each request. The same, unique instance of servlet will be used to concurrently handle all the requests. The servlet is also a singleton: the web container instantiates only one instance.
You say that the requests to your ResourceClass singleton will be queued. They won't, unless you mark the method as synchronized or use some other locking mechanism. If you don't, then the threads will invoke your singleton method concurrently.
Whether it's thread-safe or not is impossible to say without seeing the code of your singleton and the code of the JNI library. The fact that it's read-only is a sign that it could be thread-safe, but it's not guaranteed.
In a Java EE server, you only have 1 instance of each servlet.
On the other hand, each http request is processed by the server in its own thread.
There is one instance of ResourceClass because it's a singleton so you will have a bottleneck if the readResource() method is synchronized.
Our flex client needs to invoke server side EJB3 session bean. For each module we have seperate session bean.
Whether it is best to have separate flex end point (remote object) to each session bean to invoke methods or to create a single facade session bean as an endpoint and invoke other session bean methods through this facade bean.
Whether creating multiple flex end points increases the performance or its an expensive process?
Creating a RemoteObject is not an expensive process but having many of them won't really increase client-side performance either. Typically all of your RemoteObjects will reference a shared ChannelSet which basically represents the connection to the server endpoint. I would recommend using one RemoteObject for each session bean you have. You can relate a RemoteObject to a session bean by specifying the "destination" property on the RemoteObject and ensuring that your server side implementation of the FlexFactory interface resolves the destination name to the appropriate session bean.
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.