Description of problem: During migration, remote client with UserTransaction fails on 2nd SFSB invocation when using extended persistence context. AS5 allowed a remote client to instantiate a set of stateful session beans (e.g. SFSB1 + SFSB2) and then call the remote stateful session beans in a started user transaction (UT1). In AS5, both stateful beans shared the same extended persistence unit context, but on AS7/WF8, each bean has its own extended persistence unit context. In AS 7, using two instances of the same named extended persistence context in the same JTA transaction causes an (EJBException: JBAS011437: Found extended persistence context in SFSB invocation call stack but that cannot be used because the transaction already has a transactional context associated with it...) error to be thrown. The user application code must be changed to For details and code examples, see: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-2504 https://community.jboss.org/message/845455 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Scott Marlow reported this one to me. I need to check to see where this stands. Adding him to this bug.
This is a community reported issue that has not been resolved. I'm not yet sure what I want to do about it (in terms of whether to make code changes or to disallow the case as not EE spec compliant). At this moment, it is best to document the issue as being an open migration issue.
I'm not sure why this bug is a blocker. Only one person in the community has run into this and the code was not compliant. I recommend we remove the blocking status of this bug.
Created an initial topic: Migrate Remote Client with Multiple Stateful Session Beans in a UserTransaction [31290]
This is not currently a blocker, as only one community user has reported the issue.
Sande, best, to start with reading the forum post https://community.jboss.org/message/845455 which goes into more detail than the jira. I'll help answer your questions still of course. :)
Thanks Scott. I'll do that. :-)
As it was mentioned above it's not a doc blocker. Removing the flag from it.