Hi Vincent and the gang!
Vincent Massol wrote:
> > Ok, it's good to know there are more people in case you should convert
> > to anti-computerism :)
> >
>
> :-)
So, you're not going to join the Amish any time soon, are you? :)
> > In fact, right now in my day job I'm developing a mock-object
> > implementation for EJB access, we need it urgently. I don't know yet if
> > it will work, but it's very funny! :)
> >
>
> lucky you ... to be able to do this in your day-job ! :)
Sure! I still have to convince my bosses that it's the best decision,
but meanwhile it's going nicely.
The implementation's objective is to instantiate the bean object in the
local machine. To do so, it must provide a home implementation and a
stub implementation for the bean.
Needless to say, it must be generic. So, it must take a generic .class
file and modify it, fooling the virtual machine into thinking it's the
desired bean. Afterwards, it should have no problem using the bean, even
if it's instantiated in the client machine and not inside the server.
I've almost got it right now. The major roadblock is to find and parse
the EJB deployment descriptor, so we won't have to put in the name of
the remote interface. I'll keep you informed.
> would you be able to donate it to Cactus afterwards ... ? :-)
I think so. In fact, I look forward to donating it.
Un saludo,
Alex.
