On 19 May 00, at 20:14, Rickard �berg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Dan OConnor wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think you're overusing the "optional" part. It is only optional in the
> sense that it may be added at any time during development. A XML-file
> that doesn't contain it is valid, hence it is optional from a XML point
> of view. But when you want to deploy an application it is not optional
> (unless some proprietary mechanism such as the one we use is in place).
>
> /Rickard
>
Hi Rickard,
Optional in the sense that it may be added at any time during
development -- or never. No container may require that ejb-link is
present, according to my reading of the specification. It is the
responsibility of every container to provide some proprietary
mechanism for the (legal) case that ejb-link isn't present when the
application is deployed.
This is made clear in 14.3.4, which makes two points. 1) If the ejb-
link is there, the container must preserve that relationship. 2) If
the reference isn't resolved (i.e. if ejb-link isn't there), allow the
deployer to resolve the reference at that time by specifying the
appropriate linked EJB.
So the application can get up and running in any compliant
container, and ejb-link need never be specified. How much more
optional can you get? :-)
-Dan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
