On Mar 25, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Gallimore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:05 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]
>wrote:
No need. No-interface views can be remoted, so remote clients using
openejb-client can never get one.
Should that be "No-interface views cannot be remoted"?
Yes, sorry, hate when I do that.
BUT... it might be fun to do one day anyway, someday in the future,
and
then sure more deps may be required. Spec-wise some of the original
annotation name ideas were @NoInterface, etc.. which didn't imply
local vs
remote. @LocalBean was my suggestion and in the back of my mind I
was
thinking an @RemoteBean might be a cool thing to add.
It didn't really occur to me that the "Local" part meant it wouldn't
be
remotely accessible, but its kinda obvious now! *blush* ;-)
Hehe. That's the way it goes.
I was going to
make it work from a client because it didn't seem like it would be
that
difficult
My thoughts exactly. I did propose the @RemoteBean concept and it was
not well liked, but I don't see a problem with it. It does mean that
users have to have *all* the libraries that their bean class uses in
their client VM, but oh well, not so terrible. Only some people
bother to split them up these days anymore.
If people you don't want that, then they can just use a plain @Remote
interface.
now I've got the asm code done, along with the additional
openejb-jee and DeploymentInfo code, and I've got a simple case
working in
Embedded mode. I'll hold off on that and write some more tests and
get this
packaged up instead, and perhaps do a @RemoteBean implementation
later on.
Sure.
-David
