Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
> > Which would remove the JNDI thing altogether, although
> > ctx.getResource("ejb") will return a javax.naming.Context.
> >
>
> I disagree. Option A is much better. Obtaining the environment naming context
> from EJBContext will keep the API flexible so that new, unanticipated,
> resources that are not properites, EJB homes or resource factories can be
> supported. If you explicitly define the types entries available from the
> environment naming context the list of methods will grow with every new spec.
I'm not sure here, but it seems as though you misunderstood my last
comment.
EJBContext.getResource() should have return parameter Object, but a
getResource("ejb") will return a Context object(big difference!!). Your
comment "explicitly define the type entries available" only applies if
there is one getResource for each return type. Of coooourse I didn't
mean that... ;-)
> Perhaps option A should be:
>
> EJBContext.lookup( );
>
> EJBContext could become a javax.naming.Context.
Why do you want EJBContext to be a Context?
/R
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
