Failover of SFSB is only mentioned in footnote on p90

[glassfishrobot]

From Public Draft review in the EG:

The footnote [27] on p90 is the only use of the term "failover" in the spec. I assume it means what we think it means, but it seems out of place to use the terminology without introducing it. I would say either the footnote should be removed, or a section should be introduced to explain the meaning of the term (and state that it's not required, and that configuration is beyond the scope of the spec), and then the footnote should say something like "If the container supports failover, disabling passivation of a stateful session bean might prevent that functionality from working.".

Affected Versions

[3.2]

[glassfishrobot]

Reported by mvatkina

[glassfishrobot]

mvatkina said: Replaced footnote with the following note at the end of the section (thanks Jeremy for the input):

Note: application server vendors may use passivation as a technique to provide high availability of stateful session beans by replicating their state from one JVM instance to another across which the container is distributed. In a failure situation, a stateful session bean is made available on a new JVM instance by what is commonly called stateful session bean failover. If a container implementation supports failover of stateful session beans using bean passivation, the failover capability for not passivation capable stateful session beans is not defined.

[glassfishrobot]

Was assigned to mvatkina

[glassfishrobot]

This issue was imported from java.net JIRA EJB_SPEC-82

[glassfishrobot]

Marked as fixed on Thursday, March 7th 2013, 9:25:42 am