Benjamin Broll wrote:
> > Using interited bean methods (business or otherwise) is not
> > forbidden in the spec. In fact I use them extensively in my
> > beans.
>
> I've got a question regarding the use of oo concepts as well.
>
> If inhertance is permitted, is it as well possible to declare the super-bean
> abstract so that no instance of that type can be created? I'm asking because
> I'd like to build an Entity Bean which has behaviour common to several
> Entity Beans which should inherit from this super-bean _but_ the behaviour
> defined therein is not sufficient thus it has to be enhanced by sub-beans.
You can declare the super-bean class abstract.
>
>
> Now since I don't want this bean to be created (because this would create
> invalid data in the database as well) I need a possibility to declare the
> bean abstract. Do you have this possibility with EJB?
Let me elaborate on what Chris Bono said. There would be no need to declare the
bean component abstract. The bean class doesn't constitute an EJB component and
doesn't get mapped in the JNDI name space until you write and deploy a
deployment descriptor for the base class. While creating a DD for the case class
might serve as a template for the DDs of derived classes, there is no need to
actually deploy the base class.
If someone else were to attempt to deploy the base class, you don't have to
worry about it being created because it is an abstract class.
>
>
> .bbr
>
--Victor
===========================================================================
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".
