But, if you don't go through JNDI to access your
LocalHome (and thus Local objects), then aren't you
bypassing much of the app server container management
functionality?
Don't you then make it harder for the app server to manage
those local entity beans? Or does that still work due to
the LocalHome -> Local Entity process?
Thanks,
Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gautam Borah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 1:57 AM
Subject: JNDI NAME FOR LOCAL INTERFACE ?
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I was trying to follow few threads on EJB 2.0 specification(PFD 2.0). My
> concern is whether Local Interfaces should have JNDI name or not ?
> Local Interfaces are not remotely available in the network and they can be
> accessed only locally(In the same VM), i.e. Local Interfaces are not
> available through JNDI lookups from other VMs. To access these Local
> Interfaces the specification provides a way through ejb references.
>
> <spec>
> PAGE 417
> 20.3.1.2
> Declaration of EJB references in deployment descriptor
> Although the EJB reference is an entry in the enterprise bean's
environment,
> the Bean Provider must not
> use a env-entry element to declare it. Instead, the Bean Provider must
> declare all the EJB references
> using the ejb-ref and ejb-local-ref elements of the deployment descriptor.
> This allows the
> ejb-jar consumer (i.e. Application Assembler or Deployer) to discover all
> the EJB references used by
> the enterprise bean.
> </spec>
>
> <spec>
> PAGE 407
> <!--
> The ejb-local-ref element is used for the declaration of a reference
> to an enterprise bean's local home. The declaration consists of an
> optional description; the EJB reference name used in the code of the
> referencing enterprise bean; the expected type of the referenced
> enterprise bean; the expected local home and local interfaces of the
> referenced enterprise bean; and optional ejb-link information, used
> to specify the referenced enterprise bean.
> Used in: entity, session, message-driven
> -->
> <!ELEMENT ejb-local-ref (description?, ejb-ref-name, ejb-ref-type,
> local-home, local, ejb-link?)>
> </spec>
>
> At this point I would like to draw your attention to a new direction, in
the
> web.xml there is a way provided to access EJBs from JSP or Servlets
through
> <ejb-ref> tag. For example,
>
> <ejb-ref>
> <description />
> <ejb-ref-name>ejb/MyChecking</ejb-ref-name>
> <ejb-ref-type>Session</ejb-ref-type>
> <home>proton.bank.CheckingHome</home>
> <remote>proton.bank.Checking</remote>
> <ejb-link />
> </ejb-ref>
>
> Now if my WebContainer and the EjbContainer are both running in the same
> JVM, then a similar strategy can be followed to access the Local
Interfaces
> through <ejb-local-ref> tag in the WEB.XML. But this is very much
debatable.
> To achieve this support should also come from the web side as well.
>
> Coming back to my original point, IMHO the Local Interfaces should not be
> exposed through JNDI names, as they are not available in the network(They
> are not remote, nor serializable). These interfaces should be accessed
> through only by the <ejb-local-ref> and the Container should be able to
> resolve this at the deployment time. *Having two JNDI names for the same
> bean !!* , specification is not very much clear about this issue and is
very
> much debatable.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Gautam Borah
> Server Team
> www.pramati.com
>
>
===========================================================================
> 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".
