JNDIEnvironmentRefs was added to allow ComponentContextBuilder to work with different POJOs representing unrelated objects (EJBs and AppClients for sure, possibly Servlet's and Filters if needed). It works for either proposal.
This is a view used during container configuration and is not really part of the data model. The issue I had with your initial proposal was that it made the entire spec model abstract which meant that it could not me used to implement the DDBeans Aaron needs for the deployment tool. I might be wrong, but I can't for now think of another view that is common across several components - maybe JNDIBindable, but if all it is is the JNDI name then I'm not convinced a separate interface is needed (this can just be handled by the respective container). -- Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Wilkins > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vote]POJO design? > > > > > Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > [-1] Greg's patch: A single tree of standard & geronimo elements > > Well as you are pretty much approved as a committer now - > I'll take that as a veto. > > Kind of decides the issue as few others have voted anyway. > > > > - The set of interfaces provided (JNDIEnvironmentRefs, > JNDINameable, > > and > > JNDIRef) could be used as is for the other proposal, so there is no > > advantage granted by just using interfaces. Would > interface supporters > > cheerfully agree to the other patch if I add the same 3 > interfaces to it? > > That again would be better. But my main object remains that > it the current dual tree approach has been hand crafted and > we are only adding these interfaces where pragmatism dictates. > > Adding these interfaces is just going part way to my initial > proposal of having one of the two trees as interfaces so that > both hierarchies can be correct. > > So I would say that we should either add ALL interfaces for > one of the trees now, or just add them if/when they are > needed. As we are not adding all the interfaces now, then > I'd say leave it as is. > > > cheers > > >
