david sims wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
> > Laird Nelson wrote:
> > > Was it the specification's intent to *replace* the throwing of
> > > RemoteExceptions with the throwing of EJBExceptions, or was it its
> > > intent to *augment* it?
> > The intent is to replace it. EJBException should be thrown from EJB 1.1 beans
> > instead of RemoteException. RemoteException was left in the method signatures
> > to support backward compatibility with 1.0 beans.
> But of course, should one bean call another bean and encounter network
> problems, a RemoteException will be thrown and the bean should propagate it
> out, one way or another. So it's not to say that we should never, ever have to
> deal with RemoteExceptions again.
OK; thanks for both of your feedback (feedbacks?). Richard, I assume
that when you say that "EJBException should be thrown from EJB 1.1 beans
instead of RemoteException", you are speaking only of the bean class,
correct? I see no way to remove RemoteException from the signatures of
the remote or home interfaces.
Finally, I suppose that if I'm following the (excellent) suggestion of
implementing a business interface (a superinterface of the bean class
and the remote interface), I should simply not declare in the bean
class' implementations of the business interface methods that they throw
RemoteException. Or, to put it less confusingly, it should be the case
that RemoteException should not show up in any throws clause in a bean
class. Correct?
Cheers,
Laird
===========================================================================
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".
