>> But this is not in current EJB 1.1 spec. Or did I miss some-
>> thing? I think there are only about five lines about JMS
>> in the current spec. Thus, the behavoir is undefined and
>> not guaranteed to work with different EJB containers.
>> (Even though containers should work the way that bernd
>> described.)
>EJB/JMS integration is unspecified, but nothing prevents you from making
>a simple proxy that delegates incoming JMS messages to beans. And then
>you would communicate with the bean through the EJBObject, which would
>give the behaviour Bernd outlined (as the proxy is only
>yet-another-client).
There is a design fault with this approach IMO. You are moving what is
essentially infrastructure server/side functionality out of the middle tier
and making it client's responsibility and introducing unnecessary
dependencies in the process.
Regards,
Hamid
>I haven't actually tested this approach :-), but I see no reason why it
>wouldn't work. The only thing that is extra-spec is the setup of it,
>i.e. there's no specification of how these proxies are registered as
>listeners etc.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
===========================================================================
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".
