Daniel OConnor wrote:
>
> 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...
Like application-level classloaders.
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Evan Ireland Sybase EAServer Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wellington, New Zealand +64 4 934-5856
===========================================================================
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".
