I think the whole idea of VLH to use SFSB is that, VLH maintains the Value list and its state. So it makes sense to make use of SFSB. But when I looked at the PetStore example, they are using many SFSB, which I believe, is an overkill. If you already have a SFSB, I would use a serializable POJO for VLH and then cache the VLH in the existing SFSB, instead of making VLH itself a statefull session bean.
Joined: May 29, 2002
But as a best practice according to Core J2EE Patterns VLH should be a seperate SFSB.
I tend to agree with Vishwa Bandhu's recommendation although it may not be the best pratice. It reduces over head as too many SFSB are over kill. Had it not been Swing client , we could have preserved this state in HttpSession also. Vinay