File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
The moose likes EJB and other Java EE Technologies and the fly likes Relevance of the section Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » EJB and other Java EE Technologies
Bookmark "Relevance of the section "4.8.3" in the EJB 3.1 spec" Watch "Relevance of the section "4.8.3" in the EJB 3.1 spec" New topic

Relevance of the section "4.8.3" in the EJB 3.1 spec

Rajshekhar Paul
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 17, 2006
Posts: 140
In the singleton section (4.8.3) of the ejb 3.1 specification it is stated like the following-

「4.8.3Transaction Semantics of Initialization and Destruction
PostConstruct and PreDestroy methods of Singletons with container-managed transactions are transactional.
From the bean developer's view there is no client of a PostConstruct or PreDestroy method.
A PostConstruct or PreDestroy method of a Singleton with container-managed transactions has transaction
attribute REQUIRED, REQUIRES_NEW, or NOT_SUPPORTED (Required , RequiresNew, or NotSupported if the deployment descriptor is used to specify the transaction attribute).
Note that the container must start a new transaction if the REQUIRED (Required) transaction attribute is used. This guarantees, for example, that the transactional behavior of the PostConstruct method is the same regardless of whether it is initialized eagerly at container startup time or as a side effect of a first client invocation on the Singleton. The REQUIRED transaction attribute value is allowed so that specification of a transaction attribute for the Singleton PostConstruct/PreDestroy methods can be defaulted.」

Can anyone please put some light about the necessity of container managed transaction only for singleton lifecycle callback methods. For stateless session beans nothing like the above takes place. So, why for singleton this is required.

An example in the answer will be highly appreciated.

P.S. I have seen the same issue raised with JBoss forum. Here is the link

When it's obvious that you have to do it, just do it without shattering your thoughts over different directions.
I agree. Here's the link:
subject: Relevance of the section "4.8.3" in the EJB 3.1 spec
jQuery in Action, 3rd edition