OK, sorry if I'm adding confusion to this thread... someone previously
mentioned "package" structure as one of two meaning, either
1) java package - as in package com.bla.bla
2) jar package - as in physical file packages
I assumed the latter when I saw the original post. My bad!
Gene Chuang
Kiko.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tinou Bao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: each ejb having its own package
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".
===========================================================================
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".
