On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
The jndi-name is supposed to be the name to which the Home
interface is bound and the local-jndi-name is the name to which the
LocalHome interface is bound. An application should be able to
look up a home using the name at any time. Of course remote
clients can not lookup the LocalHome, but both should be available
in global JNDI for applications in the same Java VM.
I would have -1ed the removal of the global JNDI namespace if I had
realized that it was removed, and I feel strongly that we should
put it back in ASAP.
There may be 2 or more "global jndi namespaces". There was one I
implemented, based on an old version of read-only context, and for a
while connectors were able to be bound there. I removed this
binding, and no one objected at the time. EJBs have never been bound
into this AFAIK. I think perhaps we should finish removing this one.
There is also, I think, some openejb-specific jndi context, and
possibly the jndi-name and local-jndi-name are related to binding
into this one. I have no idea what the status of this is.
I don't particularly like there being so many unrelated jndi
implementations, and would like them all to be in one place with
clearly defined capabilities and uses.
thanks
david jencks
-dain
On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
All (and David Blevins in particular),
Currently we let you set both a jndi-name and local-jndi-name on an
EJB (and I assume each only works if the EJB has the corresponding
interface).
It's pretty clear that the jndi-name can be used by an application
client that wants to look up and invoke the EJB via its remote/home
interfaces.
I don't see how the local-jndi-name can be used. Since we removed
the
"global JNDI space" on the server side, I think all JNDI access is
effectively remote, and therefore you couldn't talk to the EJB
through
its local/local home interfaces. Is that right? Should the
local-jndi-name element be deprecated and/or removed?
Thanks,
Aaron
