No, you need two packages for each bean-group. In fact, I do this with
non-EJB projects as well - I place the interfaces and exceptions in one
package, and the implementation in another.
- Avi
--
This signature intentionally left blank.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony K. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 17:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: each ejb having its own package
>
>
> To me this one is interesting.
>
> I have seen about (and in many books) that the seperation of
> interfaces
> and implementations of beans is a good thing. To me this is a little
> odd that for a given bean you need 2 packages. I guess I
> would like to
> be convinced of the advantages of doing this as it seems a popular
> choice,
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Avi Kivity
> Sent: 02 July 2001 15:26
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: each ejb having its own package
>
>
> I recommend placing the the external interfaces (home, remote, exposed
> dependants) in one package, and the implementation (bean class,
> deployment descriptors, unexposed dependants) in another.
> This makes the
> client view much simpler - import one package, and you may
> use anything
> you find there.
>
> So you would have
>
> com.whatever.something.A
> com.whatever.something.AHome
> com.whatever.something.B
> com.whatever.something.BHome
> com.whatever.something.C
> com.whatever.something.CHome
> com.whatever.something.beans.ABean
> com.whatever.something.beans.A-ejb-jar.xml
> com.whatever.something.beans.A-vendor-ejb-jar.xml
> com.whatever.something.beans.etc...
>
> - Avi
> --
> This signature intentionally left blank.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Krishnan Subramanian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 16:39
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: each ejb having its own package
> >
> >
> > tinou,
> >
> > on the contrary, i would recommend (other opinions?)
> > grouping EJBs into packages based on functionality of
> > your application domain rather than anything else. that
> > is entire point of package names - is it not? of course
> > you might append a "session" or "entity" package at
> > the very end if you so prefer - but much of it is upto
> > you - the bean provider.
> >
> > and of course it should make life easier for the developers in your
> > team as well other teams.
> >
> > -krish
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tinou Bao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 3:24 PM
> > Subject: each ejb having its own package
> >
> >
> > > what are people's options of this? is it practical for
> > large projects with
> > > lots of ejbs? examples always have each ejb in it's own
> > package, as does the
> > > blueprint petstore example. i can see how it maybe easier
> > for packaging into
> > > jar files and building, but at some point doesn't it become
> > cumbersome to
> > > have so many packages.
> > >
> > > thanks.
===========================================================================
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".
