Thanks
Manu
On 11/28/05, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 28, 2005, at 1:41 AM, Manu George wrote:
> Hi David,
> Won't it be better to validate in both the cases to take
> care of the unusual situations you mentioned? Is there any specific
> reason why the validation is not done in the second case?
I don't see how we could do any meaningful validation. You can name
any gbean in any configuration anything you want, including giving it a
name that appears to be from a different configuration. AFAIK all the
names constructed from the "name" form are valid object/gbean names.
To see why we can't assume that the gbean referenced is available in
the server at deployment time, consider 2 ears A and B. A has some cmp
ejbs, however the datasource they use are in B, as is a web app that
uses the ejbs. If you deploy A first, the datasource is not available
for the cmp beans. If you deploy B first, the ejbs are not available
for the web app. One or the other can't use a resolution method that
requires the gbean to be present at the time of resolution
thanks
david jencks
>
> Thanks
> Manu
