On Sep 28, 2007, at 8:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has
been changed in OpenEJB. So, there is a compatibility issue with
2.0.1. We might be able to configure how OpenEJB generates this
default to maintain backward compatibility. Better, IMO, to go
ahead and match OpenEJB's behavior.
There are no compatibility issues as it was explicitly set in
Geronimo 2.0.1 to be essentially {moduleId}/{ejbName}/
{interfaceClass} (actually it's {deploymentId}/{interfaceClass}
and deploymentId will be {moduleId}/{ejbName}). It'll still be
the same in Geronimo 2.0.2, just now it can be changed to
something shorter.
I'd be fine with Geronimo using the OpenEJB default of essentially
{ejbName}{interfaceType.annotationName} (it's {deploymentId}
{interfaceType.annotation} where deploymentId defaults to
{ejbName}), but it's definitely a default that targets people with
just a couple apps. People in bigger environments would have to
set the jndiname and deploymentId formats to something less likely
to conflict.
Does anyone have any thoughts or preferences on this one? Need to
get some input from the group.
My opinion on what to do depends a bit on whether this name format
can result in name collisions for javaee clients as well as non-
javaee clients. My impression is that it can result in name
collisions for both if you pick a name format that is not
sufficiently unique. Assuming this is true I would prefer to have a
default name format that minimizes the chance of name collisions
together with easy-to-follow instructions for those with only one app
or who can modify all their apps to avoid name collisions as needed.
thanks
david jencks
-David
