Originally posted by Ramon Gill:
Nik,
You're correct about entity beans not being allowed to be BMT (CMT only). However, Darry1 also mentioned about switching from an entity bean to a session bean. Darly, can you clarify what exactly happened?
Curious,
Ray Gill 
It seems to me that, although Entities can have no such BMT attribute,
a BMP Entity that is used outside the context of a Transaction
is effectively having its "transactional state" managed by the Bean.
Perhaps this is what the previous comments are implying.
In my limited knowledge of this topic, it seems that nothing
would stop you from doing this (example)...
You have a SLSB with Never that accesses a BMP Entity which it reads and
updates. Given that you are brave enough to do this, it should work.
If you deploy the session bean as BMT with Required, say, it should still
be able to access and update the BMP Entity. I can see why you might want to informally call the Entity a "BMT" Entity. But its really the persistence of the Entity that the bean is managing, and the
container does the same things to the Entity's lifecycle as it would normally do (threat it as CMT).
I should really set up an executable example of this to confirm
what it does. Comment's from anyone who knows better?
Juan Rolando Prieur-Reza, M.S., LSSBB, SCEA, SCBCD, SCWCD, SCJP/1.6, IBM OOAD, SCSA
