Dan OConnor wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 00, at 9:15, Rickard �berg wrote:
>
> > If we add the "system" notion, then the EAR metadata would have a parent
> > too, so the ejb-ref's that an ejb-link can resolve to is the transitive
> > closure of the entire system.
>
> I wanted to make a small suggestion for this new and improved
> deployment facility about which we've been talking. I think it would
> be great if it supported the new <ejb-link> syntax, which allows
> bean references to use a path name within an EAR file prepended
> to the bean name and separated by #. (See 9.3.2 of the proposed
> final EJB 2.0 draft.)
That seems of very limited usefulness. It looks like the only reason for
it is if you have different EJBs with the same name in one application.
I'd be more inclined to say "don't do that, then". But, if it's in the
spec, it's in the spec.
> Also, I wanted to point out that the use of <ejb-link> to refer to an
> EJB outside of the current EAR is non-compliant, so applications
> that used such a feature wouldn't be portable. IMHO if you want to
> link to a bean in a different EAR, jboss should only support this in
> our jboss-specific xml file. That way we won't encourage non-
> portable deployment descriptors. However, I can see the ease-of-
> use argument for the other point of view.
It should be easy to transform a collection of EARs with inter-EAR
ejb-links into a single EAR without making changes to the standard
deployment descriptors. That way, JBoss is simply offering a way to
split otherwise compliant EARs into more easily managed pieces. I think
that it's similar to allowing the deployment of unpackaged directories.
Toby.
--
Toby Allsopp
Energy Research Lab
Peace Software International Ltd
Ph +64-9-3730400
