Gene, did you mean to say "spec highly recommends packaging all beans that
have relationship to one another into one jar," not one package as you
wrote.
--
Tinou Bao
www.tinou.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Chuang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [EJB-INT] each ejb having its own package
> Hmm, I racked my brain for a while thinking where did I see this (ejb 2.0
> recommending one-jar packing)? Since I participate in an aweful lot of
> discussion groups, this exercise in recall wasn't easy! Was it this
> newsgroup or j2ee-interest, theserverside, javalobby, lajug, or bea
> newsgroup?
>
> And then all of a sudden, it hit me: It's the latest article by Tyler!
>
> http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2001/06/26/ejb.html
>
> <Tyler's snippet>
> One of the possible solutions is to eliminate the need for multiple JARs
in
> your J2EE application by converging all of your EJBs and their utility
> classes into a single, unified package. The EJB 2.0 public final draft 2
> (PFD2) specification is driving some projects to do this. This new version
> of the specification mandates that entity EJBs participating in a
> relationship do so using local interfaces and requires both of the EJBs in
> the relationship to be packaged into the same JAR file.
> </Tyler's snippet>
>
> Don't tell me there's some BEA in-house ideological conflict! :-)
>
> Gene Chuang
> Kiko.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cedric Beust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 11:59 AM
> To: Gene Chuang; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: each ejb having its own package
>
>
> > From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gene Chuang
>
> > I read somewhere EJB 2.0 spec highly recommends packaging all beans that
> > have relationship to one another into one package, especially to take
> > advantage of Local Interfaces. This is somewhat akin to current
> > optimization of some vendors that do pass-by-reference, but only if the
> > beans exist in one package.
>
> Mmmh... Local Interfaces and packages are two orthogonal notions, I can't
> see why one would recommend to put all beans that have a relationship with
> each other in the same package.
>
> Can you remember where you read this?
>
> --
> Cedric
>
>
===========================================================================
> 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".
