Version two of the proposed final draft for EJB 2.0 introduces the
concept of local interfaces, which use pass-by-reference
semantics. These local interfaces are required to be co-located in
the same JVM as their clients (obviously). However, apparently
local interfaces can be located in a different deployment unit from
their client--or can anyone point to something in the specification
which contradicts this?
It seems to me that this introduces an implementation issue. If
multiple deployment units are deployed into the same JVM,
wouldn't they have different class loaders? This would be the most
obvious way to implement features such as hot deploy and
configurable Java security, anyway. But interface and value-object
(e.g. view object) instances passed by reference across class
loaders would result in a ClassCastException, wouldn't they?
I'm guessing I'm missing something obvious...
===========================================================================
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".
