It was mentioned that Axis doesn't yet support Stateful EJB's.  This would
be a nice feature, one that Apache SOAP 2.2 already had.

Thanks,
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Woolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: WSDD for a Stateful EJB


Glen says it shouldn't be so hard to add support for Stateful and Entity
Beans in Axis. It might help to post this issue to the axis-dev list!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Woolf      [EMAIL PROTECTED]     www.ccs.neu.edu/home/woolf
Macromedia      [EMAIL PROTECTED]          www.macromedia.com
----------------------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ackley, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:20 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: WSDD for a Stateful EJB
> 
> 
> That's unfortunate!  Apache SOAP 2.2 supported stateful 
> session beans...
> 
> Say it isn't so. :)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Woolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:29 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: WSDD for a Stateful EJB
> 
> 
> My understanding (having recently looked at the EJBProvider 
> code) is that
> Axis only supports Stateless Session Beans.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl Woolf      [EMAIL PROTECTED]     www.ccs.neu.edu/home/woolf
> Macromedia      [EMAIL PROTECTED]          www.macromedia.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ackley, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:39 AM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: WSDD for a Stateful EJB
> > 
> > 
> > I'd like to create a WSDD for a Stateful EJB (using WebLogic 6.1).
> > 
> > Has anyone done this?  Not much information in the format of 
> > a WSDD file
> > yet...
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Paul Ackley
> > Qwest Communications, Inc.
> > 
> 

Reply via email to