Erik,
I don't agree with you. According to you there should be 2 remote because
session and entity are different:
1. Primary key: both entity and session have primary key. It is different
that programmer shouldn't call it in session as it is for container.
I don't see anything else which is reflected in EJBObject that is
conflicting for the two.
Do you agree?
punit
>EJB defines the distinction between entity beans and session beans, and
>provides
>separate EntityBean and SessionBean interfaces for the bean implementer,
>but
>does not provide separate interfaces for the remote interface. Does anyone
>know
>why subinterfaces of EJBObject aren't provided for entities and sessions?
>That
>would seem like a natural way to provide a way to define variables,
>parameters,
>or return values that are limited to EJBObject references that are just
>entities, or just sessions. This seems useful to me, since there are
>significant differences between sessions and entities (such as that
>sessions
>cannot be persistent objects and do not support returning primary key).
>
>Erik Voldal
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Phone: 507-253-4788
>
>===========================================================================
>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".
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
===========================================================================
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".
