On 19 May 00, at 19:34, Rickard �berg wrote:
>
> > 3. The ejb-ref-name, both trimmed and untrimmed (since putting it
> > in the "ejb" context is a recommendation, not a mandate, of the
> > spec.) I think we should call this the "Oleg default." :-)
>
> IMHO unnecessary, since this procedure is done to fill in the info for
> the 1. case by the GUI. And it is counter to the spec (14.3.4).
>
> > Count me in, unless somene has a compelling argument against it.
>
> The idea is good, but only in the XML editing phase, not in theF
> deployment phase.
>
> /Rickard
Hi Rickard,
Fair enough. All the information in the reference is being used to
make the deployment process as simple as possible, including
information that exists because of common naming conventions.
That's the main point; I'm not against this happening in the XML
editing phase as opposed to the final deployment phase.
I will make one minor point. The ultimate user-friendly deployment
is that a bean developer can just plop his jar or ear into a directory
and not worry about any JBoss-specific settings at all. I don't mind
making the developer who wants this feature use ejb-link, but we
can add additional value for the case where the developer has
followed a set of naming conventions during development (as some
certainly will) but didn't use the optional ejb-link feature.
This capability would not violate 14.3.3, even if ejb-link is not
specified. If he or she enables this option in JBoss, this "naming
convention match" IS the container-specific deployment tool. So
the only unresolved EJB references of which we would need to
inform him or her, would be the ones without an appropriate binding
even after naming convention matches are applied.
Would anyone want this?
-Dan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
