are you sure it is not done ;)? well good catch, thanks
- Romain 2012/6/5 David Blevins <[email protected]> > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb/container/openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/core/stateless/LocalBeanAnnotatedLocalTest.java > > > > and we have a strict mode: -Dopenejb.strict.interface.declaration=true > > Can you move that to the place where all the other rules live? > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb/container/openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/config/rules/ > > > -David > > > 2012/6/5 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > > > >> My answer is Yes as soon as it's possible and as soon as it isn't > against > >> the spec. > >> As it is not tested by TCK right now, we could allow it and just output > a > >> log. > >> > >> If we could have a strict mode as suggested by Neale or as I proposed > some > >> years ago, that'd be definitely a good point. For the moment, we don't > have > >> such a mechanism, so IMHO that'd be better to clarify the message and to > >> let the suer know that his app is wrong. > >> > >> JLouis > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/6/5 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> > >>> ok i'll move the sample, > >>> > >>> about the default behavior: it should pass or not? The question is > >> "should > >>> an app develop on GF work out of the box". You know my opinion ;) > >>> > >>> - Romain > >>> > >>> > >>> 2012/6/5 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
