My personal feeling is that we don't want to teach bad things so definitely -1 for an example. Then, it is not tested (yet) by tck so we can detect that an output a WARN with a clearer message.
But, IMO just changing the message to make it more understandable with an advice to fix the code is my preferred solution. Jean-Louis 2012/6/5 David Blevins <[email protected]> > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:34 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > >> Author: rmannibucau > >> Date: Mon Jun 4 19:50:30 2012 > >> New Revision: 1346120 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1346120&view=rev > >> Log: > >> @Local on class with no interfaces > > > > We definitely do not want an example that teaches this non-compliant > behavior. > > > > This would be the right place to test it: > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb/container/openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/config/rules/ > > I wonder what thoughts there are on leaving this an error condition. > > In this particular situation, the user ended up with a better app and is > happy with us for watching their back. > > Seems like we won for doing the right thing. > > Side note, I have brought this up to the EJB 3.2 EG. > > > -David > >
