This content has been marked as final.
Show 4 replies
-
1. Re: Possible bean types of an EJB 3.1 SFSB
asiandub Aug 28, 2010 6:48 AM (in response to asiandub)I found that in the JSR 299 spec (3.2.2. Bean types of a session bean):
The unrestricted set of bean types for a session bean contains all local interfaces of the bean and their superinterfaces. If
the session bean has a bean class local view, the unrestricted set of bean types contains the bean class and all superclasses.
In addition, java.lang.Object is a bean type of every session bean.
Remote interfaces are not included in the set of bean types.Putting it all together:
The unrestricted set of bean types for a session bean contains all local interfaces of the bean and their superinterfaces.- BookShop, Auditable
If
the session bean has a bean class local view, the unrestricted set of bean types contains the bean class and all superclasses.- (Not the case)
In addition, java.lang.Object is a bean type of every session bean.- Object
Remote interfaces are not included in the set of bean types.- (Not the case)
-
2. Re: Possible bean types of an EJB 3.1 SFSB
pmuir Sep 1, 2010 10:12 AM (in response to asiandub)
Jan Groth wrote on Aug 24, 2010 16:57:
hi there,
I'm struggling over this part of the JSR 299 reference (chapter 2.2)
Meanwhile, this session bean has only the local interfaces
since the bean class is not a client-visible type.
BookShop
and
Auditable,
along with
Object,
as bean types,@Stateful public class BookShopBean extends Business implements BookShop, Auditable { ... }
So - in my understanding of EJB 3.1 we can make the following assumptions:- BookshopBean implements two interfaces, so it's not a no-interface-view
- BookShop and Auditable can (but don't need to be) annotated with either @Local or @Remote
I would expect some sort of container error message if neither BookShop nor Auditable are @Local or @Remote, but I'm not sure. Can anyone clarify on this?This sounds like a reasonable error (not required by the EJB spec that I know of). Open a thread on the JBoss EJB3 forum, and lets see what they say. Can you link it back here?
And, the real question: Why is Object among the bean types, but not Business?Everything in Java is rooted in Object, including interfaces.
-
3. Re: Possible bean types of an EJB 3.1 SFSB
asiandub Sep 2, 2010 2:25 AM (in response to asiandub)
Everything in Java is rooted in Object, including interfaces.I had the vague idea that this is true (smiley)
My question rather was: If the hierarchy is
BookShopBean - Business - Object, then why didn't Business make it into the list of bean types?From my understanding the answer is: Object is a bean type because it superclasses the interfaces BookShop and Auditable, but not because it superclasses BookShopBean.
Correct?
-
4. Re: Possible bean types of an EJB 3.1 SFSB
pmuir Sep 6, 2010 5:48 AM (in response to asiandub)
Jan Groth wrote on Sep 02, 2010 02:25:Everything in Java is rooted in Object, including interfaces.
I had the vague idea that this is true (smiley)
My question rather was: If the hierarchy is
BookShopBean - Business - Object, then why didn't Business make it into the list of bean types?
From my understanding the answer is: Object is a bean type because it superclasses the interfaces BookShop and Auditable, but not because it superclasses BookShopBean.
Correct?Exactly right :-)