On 19 May 00, at 19:11, Oleg Nitz wrote:
> I don't think that the examples of ejb-link usage are
> the recommendations of the spec.
> I would prefer to set ejb-name to ejb/XXX. Why not?
> But if it is a common understanding...
[...]
>
> I just supposed that it is better to give the same name in ejb-name
> and ejb-ref-name (namely, ejb/XXX) than to invent naming schemes.
> And I supposed that in this case I can omit ejb-link and this would be
> absolutely spec-compliant (I still think so).
> But if people usually give different names - well, I'd better give up
> in this discussion than vote for this dangerous "Oleg default."
>
> Best regards,
> Oleg
Hi Oleg,
The specification recommends that references to other beans be
"organized" in the ejb subcontext of the bean's environment. To
me, this implies that the entire name of a bean should be placed in
the ejb subcontext. The examples in the spec seem to follow this
practice. (Remember that this is just a recommendation that
programmers are free to ignore. However, since it is in the spec,
as container developers we should probably treat it as the default
case.)
Why do you think that adding this additional default would be
dangerous? It's just another heuristic for the container to use in
trying to assist the deployer. The deployer still has full control of
what actually happens.
-Dan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
