Correct usage of Stateful Beans with Servlets

Question

We currently have a Stateful bean that is injected into a Servlet. The problem is that sometimes we get a Caused by: javax.ejb.ConcurrentAccessException: SessionBean is executing another request. [session-key: 7d90c02200a81f-752fe1cd-1] when executing a method on the stateful bean.

public class NewServlet extends HttpServlet {  
    @EJB  
    private ReportLocal reportBean;

    protected void processRequest(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response)
    throws ServletException, IOException {
        response.setContentType("text/html;charset=UTF-8");
        PrintWriter out = response.getWriter();
        try {
           String[] parameters  = fetchParameters(request);
           out.write(reportBean.constructReport(parameters));
        } finally { 
            out.close();
        }
    } 
}

In the above code, constructReport will check if it needs to open a new connection to the database specified in the Report after which a Report in HTML is constructed from a query which is built from the parameters specified.

The reason why we chose to use a stateful bean over a stateless bean was because we need to open a database connection to an unknown database and perform queries on it. With a stateless bean it seems terribly inefficient to repeatedly open and close database connections with each injected instance of the bean.

Answer 1

A few more details regarding the ConcurrentAccessException: as per the EJB spec, access to SLSB is synchronized by the app. server. However, this is not the case with SFSB. The burden of making sure that the SFSB is not accessed concurrently is on the application developer's shoulders.

Why? Well, synchronization of SLSB is only necessary at the instance-level. That is, each particular instance of the SLSB is synchronized, but you may have multiple instances in a pool or on different node in a cluster, and concurrent requests on different instances is not a problem. This is unfortunately not so easy with SFSB because of passivation/activation of instances and replication across the cluster. This is why the spec doesn't enforce this. Have a look at this dicussion if you are interested in the topic.

This means that using SFSB from servlet is complicated. A user with multiple windows from the same session, or reloading page before the rendering finished can lead to concurrent access. Each access to the EJB that is done in a servlet needs theoretically to be synchronized on the bean itself. What I did was to to create an InvocationHandler to synchronize all invocations on the particular EJB instance:

public class SynchronizationHandler implements InvocationHandler {

 private Object target;  // the EJB

 public SynchronizationHandler( Object bean )
 {
        target = bean;
 }

  public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable
  {
    synchronized( target )
    {
       // invoke method to the target EJB
    }
  }

}

Then, right after you obtain the remote reference to the EJB, you wrap it with the SynchronizationHandler. This way you are sure that this particular instance will not be accessed concurrently from your app (as long as it runs in only one JVM). You can also write a regular wrapper class which synchronizes all the methods of the bean.

My conclusion is nevertheless: use SLSB whenever possible.

EDIT:

This answer reflects the EJB 3.0 specs (section 4.3.13):

Clients are not allowed to make concurrent calls to a stateful session object. If a client-invoked business method is in progress on an instance when another client-invoked call, from the same or different client, arrives at the same instance of a stateful session bean class, if the second client is a client of the bean’s business interface, the concurrent invocation may result in the second client receiving the javax.ejb.ConcurrentAccessException

Such restrictions have been removed in EJB 3.1 (section 4.3.13):

By default, clients are allowed to make concurrent calls to a stateful session object and the container is required to serialize such concurrent requests.

[...]

The Bean Developer may optionally specify that concurrent client requests to a stateful session bean are prohibited. This is done using the @AccessTimeout annotation or access-timeout deployment descriptor element with a value of 0. In this case, if a client-invoked business method is in progress on an instance when another client-invoked call, from the same or different client, arrives at the same instance of a stateful session bean, if the second client is a client of the bean’s business interface or no-interface view, the concurrent invocation must result in the second client receiving a javax.ejb.ConcurrentAccessException

Answer 2

This is not what stateful session beans (SFSB) are intended to be used for. They are designed to hold conversation state, and are to be bound to the user's http session to hold that state, like a heavyweight alternative to storing state in the session directly.

If you want to hold things like database connections, then there are better ways to go about it.

Best option is to use a connection pool. You should always use a connection pool, and if you're running inside an application server (which, if you're using EJBs, then you are), then you can easily use your appserver's datasource configuration to create a connection pool, and use that inside your stateless session bean (SLSB).