Hey
MARK HAPNER wrote:
> It is possible today for an EJB vendor to provide an asynchronous
> implementation of EJB method calls with no return value, no application
> exceptions and with an appropriate transaction attribute, i.e. nothing
> prevents a container implemention from reliably queueing such calls and
> delivering them later.
Exactly. So if I understand Mark's position correctly (correct me if I'm
wrong here), he does not think that asynch RMI is a bad thing, it's just
that it should not be *the* integration between EJB/JMS. It is a good
complement to beans being able to be message consumers, but should not
be the *only* integration specified in EJB2.0.
Right?
/Rickard
--
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".
