> > [ Justin wrote]
>
> >> The fundamental problem here is that if the bean context is extensible,
> >> the passivation/activation mechanisms must recognise any extension.
> >
> >which is why it should be done by jaws and not the container or
> the manager
> >(PersistenceManager).. this is "store" specific, not "manager" specific.
>
> OK - so how does JAWS get at the passivation store? (as opposed to the
> persistent store, which JAWS *is* responsible for)
Sorry I wasn't clear...
JAWS is *not* responsible for the "passivation" and "activation" operations
in their whole.
JAWS is just responsible for the "putJAWSContext" in the "storeContext" of
the EnterpriseContext.
In that respect (and that is what I explained in the first mail) we still
need the "callback" to jaws to say "I am (the container) activating this,
but you take care of your jaws specific information (tuned updates are
specific to JAWS).
Is this clearer?
But maybe I missed your question...
marc
>
> --
> Justin Forder
>
>
