Cedric Beust wrote:
>
> >From: Jonathan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >BEA attempting to influence the specification because it makes it easier
> on
> >them? Almost certainly. Consider this: if the specification changed
> >dramatically right up to the final release, then BEA would be forced to
> >significantly modify their beta implementation, and developer code might
> >break. So, it is most certainly in BEA's best interest to influence the
> >specification.
>
> If I understand you right, the fact that PFD2 introduces so many radical
> changes compared to PFD1 proves that BEA obviously has zero influence on the
> specification.
>
> Although you probably meant to say the opposite :-)
I'll leave that for Jonathan to comment.
How about we all move on and discuss the merits (or otherwise) of PFD 2!
Personally, I like it a great deal. It is a great deal better than the original
PFD. The key benefit is legitimizing pass-by-value so that it is the client
programmer's responsibility to choose the argument-passing semantics they wish
to use. This has major implications for portability of EJB code.
I would have liked to see 'remote' relationships as well, but at least we
have a solid starting point from which to move forward in EJB 2.x (3.?).
________________________________________________________________________________
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".
