>>>>> "Hemant" == Hemant Khandelwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hemant> Sorry for my wrong assumption, but then what I said would not help you
much.
Hemant> Deferred keys are specified at the time of deployment. Section 9.4.7 of
Hemant> EJB1.1 spec will give you good idea on this.
Ok, I understand now. I'm not happy with the idea of "hiding" the PK type,
however. AFAICT, that's what the effect of using a deferred key would be.
Going back to my original scheme, I understand that the NAMES of the fields in
the PK class have to be a subset of the names of the fields in the bean class.
Nothing seems to specify what the TYPES of those fields are, however.
If I have types "StudentRemote" and "ClassRemote" in the bean class (with names
"student" and "klass"), what if my fields of the PK class (still named
"student" and "klass") were just the types of the primary key of Student and
Class, respectively, which is just "java.lang.String"?
That is, in my bean class, I have "StudentRemote student" and "ClassRemote
klass", and in my PK class, I would have "String student" and "String klass".
Is this a reasonable strategy, and if not, why not? Does doing it this way
carry any unexpected (by me) consequences?
I'm starting to get a feeling that if I implemented this, and then analyzed the
performance of it, it might encourage me to implement this functionality with a
stateless SB instead.
--
===================================================================
David M. Karr ; Best Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Java/Unix/XML/C++/X ; BrainBench CJ12P (#12004)
===========================================================================
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".
