1 2 3 Previous Next 34 Replies Latest reply on Oct 17, 2007 7:08 AM by wolfc Go to original post
      • 30. Re: EJBTHREE-786
        alrubinger
        alrubinger Oct 5, 2007 4:41 AM (in response to alrubinger)

        Also arising out of the changes from 786:

        http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1058

        S,
        ALR

          • Actions
        • 31. Re: EJBTHREE-786
          bill.burke
          bill.burke Oct 5, 2007 10:38 AM (in response to alrubinger)

          getEJBObject() is deprecated in favor of getBusinessObject()

            • Actions
          • 32. Re: EJBTHREE-786
            bdecoste
            bdecoste Oct 5, 2007 2:39 PM (in response to alrubinger)

            I'm wondering what the trigger should be for us to support a 2.1 view (EJBObject)? Maybe just the existence of a Home interface? Is that better than explicit extends EJBObject?

              • Actions
            • 33. Re: EJBTHREE-786
              alrubinger
              alrubinger Oct 17, 2007 1:29 AM (in response to alrubinger)

              Keep coming around to this issue, and the collisions introduced by http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1071 / EJB3 4.6.6 Bullet 1.

              We can't allow a business interface to extend EJBObject/EJBLocalObject.

              "bdecoste" wrote:
              I'm wondering what the trigger should be for us to support a 2.1 view (EJBObject)? Maybe just the existence of a Home interface?

              I'm thinking that's it.

              "wolfc" wrote:
              How about we take out the explicit binding of EJBObject in the proxy factories. If one of the interfaces extends EJBObject it'll be picked up again.

              We've now taken the explicit binding of EJBObject out of the Proxy factories, but again, since the business interfaces cannot extend EJBObject, we're now in the position where no Proxy object ever implements EJBObject; local/remote interfaces are impossible.

              Guess we'll have to bind EJBObject/EJBLocalObject back into the Proxies, and only if a Home interface is defined. This way, defining a Home interface completes a full EJB 2.1 view. Side effect is that the Proxy can now be casted to EJBObject - is this allowable?

              Only other option is to put remote/local interfaces into their own Proxy in JNDI. We've talked about this before; seems excessive.

              To this end. there's nothing in 4.7.1 that says that these classes cannot have overlap - ie. the class that implements the business interface may be the same class that implements the remote interface; in our case, the Proxy, which will do double-duty if Home is defined.

              Thoughts?

              S,
              ALR

                • Actions
              • 34. Re: EJBTHREE-786
                wolfc
                wolfc Oct 17, 2007 7:08 AM (in response to alrubinger)

                 

                "ALRubinger" wrote:

                "wolfc" wrote:
                How about we take out the explicit binding of EJBObject in the proxy factories. If one of the interfaces extends EJBObject it'll be picked up again.

                We've now taken the explicit binding of EJBObject out of the Proxy factories, but again, since the business interfaces cannot extend EJBObject, we're now in the position where no Proxy object ever implements EJBObject; local/remote interfaces are impossible.

                If I have: 
                interface MyRemoteBusiness {}

interface MyRemoteHome extends EJBHome {}

interface MyRemote extends EJBObject {}

                The proxy implements both MyRemoteBusiness and MyRemote (optionally also MyRemoteHome). So in effect it will implement EJBObject.

                  • Actions
                1 2 3 Previous Next