----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Fern�ndez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: VOTE vs POLL + becoming a committer
> 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? :)
:-) Well, no ... frankly no ... that's not on my roadmap ... no electricity,
yuck ... ! :-)
>
> > > 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.
>
hum ... I had not thought about that. I understand that you may need to
generate mock stubs and home implementations but I don't understand why you
would have to mess with class files ?
> > would you be able to donate it to Cactus afterwards ... ? :-)
>
> I think so. In fact, I look forward to donating it.
>
that's great to hear .. I'm looking forward to looking at your
implementation !
> Un saludo,
>
> Alex.
-Vincent
