On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:31 AM, David Jencks wrote:
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.
Javaee client names and the non-javaee client now use different
trees, so the jndiformat has no impact on javaee client functionality.
-David
