The danger you mention would be true if the Handle existed within Container-space. Since what I'm trying to do is to refer to Entities while *outside* the container (in an Applet which does HTTP tunneling to communicate to the container) the Handles would not be able to call getEJBObject(). I didn't mention that before.
However, this makes it obvious that the Handles would be impotent to do many of their intended container-space operations when outside the container. This drives home the point that they probably aren't a great idea to use to represent Entities when in http-space. -Charles May On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:25:55 +0100, Juan Pablo Lorandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You could get a Handle to an EJB, persist it, delete the actual EJB and >still have a "valid" Handle: you won't know the Entity is gone till you >try unpersisting it. Also, passing the Handle seems, IMHO, even more >dangerous than the PK: the front end developer has access to the Entity >Bean itself; that also makes the Home interface available >(EJBObject.getEJBHome() ) All risks I pointed out in the previous email >are augmented should you pass around Handles. =========================================================================== 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".
