In the 3rd Edition of O'Reilly's EJB book (http://oreilly.techrev.org/), I use
"Remote" and "Local" suffix for clarity. It ends up becoming very cumbersome as
some EJB names are already long. For example, the ProcessPayment EJB may have
both a local and remote interface named ProcessPaymentLocal and
ProcessPaymentRemote respectively.
Admittedly, this naming system is pretty verbose, but it's also very explicit
which is good think for a tech book. While it works well in the book, I don't
know if I would recommend it for a project.
Richard
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly 2000)
Co-Author of Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000)
http://www.jMiddleware.com
Cedric Beust wrote:
> > From: Jonathan K. Weedon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > I am taking the time to dwell on these conventions because we are
> > working on the default code generation for JBuilder, and we need
> > to decide what the default names of beans should be. So, my rule
> > is:
> >
> > * entities: default to local interface, no "Local" suffix
> > * sessions: default to remote interface, no "Remote" suffix
>
> I have been mulling over these issues myself, and I'm not quite sure which
> one is best. I agree that typically, Entities will have local interfaces
> and no remotes and Sessions will have remotes and no locals.
>
> Right now, for historical reasons, we have "non qualified name = remote
> interface" (e.g. Person) and the local interface is qualified (e.g.
> PersonLocal, or LocalPerson).
>
> There are two questions to debate:
>
> 1) Should both types be qualified or just one? (i.e. Person and
> PersonLocal, or PersonRemote and PersonLocal)
>
> 2) Should a similar name sometimes be a remote interface and sometimes a
> local one?
>
> The latter question is reminiscent of Hungarian notation debates, so it is
> likely to generate a lot of heat. Basically, it boils down to: how much do
> you want to know about the underlying type of the interface you are
> manipulating?
>
> As for 1), my guess is that history will prevail and we will probably keep
> the same notation we are using right now.
>
> The bottom line is as always: whatever notation you decide to use, stick to
> it throughout your whole project. And JBuilder should probably offer all
> those combinations...
>
> --
> 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".
