Hi!
"Lahooti, Hamid" wrote:
> >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.
Indeed. This is a temporary fix until EJB/JMS integration is specified
formally. But until that is specified, this is a rather ok solution
which gives you much flexibility with minimal hassles (I think).
What solution would you propose instead? You can't say that a solution
is bad and show a better one ;-)
BTW, it is not the clients responsibility, but the application/bean
developers. Also, what unnecessary dependencies are you referring to?
The beans are not reliant on the proxies. The only one that knows of
them at all is the "installer" which registers them as JMS-listeners.
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
@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".
