Hi Ho,
Rickard �berg wrote:
> Also, note that what is being referred to here are the classes that
> would normally go into what is termed the "client jar", and which is
> referenced in the EJB-JAR XML descriptor. So, any component adhering to
> this more reusable form of jars (i.e. having two, one if which is for
> deployment, and one of which is for clients, both applications and other
> EJBs) would be easy to reference in new applications. That is the
> intent.
Cool. That's the key statement that was missing. I assumed from your first
post -- and the jboss tutorial docs -- that you (and jboss.org) were not
recommending building a "client jar." In your first post you stated:
> > > So, package ABean,AHome and ARemote in A.jar and deploy, and package
> > > BBean, BHome, BRemote, Ahome, and ARemote in B.jar and deploy.
> > > Any B instances can now access the A component.
My only confusion, then, is why not just build a client jar for "A" and let
"B" see "A" through "A's" client jar? After all, "B" IS "A's" client,
whether it is part of the same app or not... of course "no black and white
here" but it would save a step if you have to build a client jar anyway.
> > I think Ken will be able to get his app to work the way you stated, but
it
> > is not the way the book author intended for it to work.
>
> Then how did he intend for it to work? Is this stated?
I will not try to defend the author of whom I have never discussed this
matter, nor will I criticize your volunteer documentation folks for holes in
their work. But Monson-Haefel does sell a lot of books! ;-)
> > There are not only a
> > bunch of books out there, but the author has the app working on several
> > servers, including j2ee ri, with little or no changes.
>
> Food for thought: does this point to a flawed execution/understanding
> from all of the above parties of the intent of the specification, or the
> validation that the approach used is right? ...
That was all it was meant to be, "food for thought," not an exercise in
legalese. I wonder if jboss would benefit from having his samples run
unchanged. That's all. If conforming to his brand of app would help you,
great!
<question> Do you think it would help you? </question>
<opinion> I think it would. </opinion>
> > So what if Monson-Haefel asked: "How do we get TravelAgent to see
Cabin?"
> > :-)
>
> If both are part of same application -> package in same jar.
> If they are part of two separate applications (each comprising one
> bean..?) -> package in two jars with shared interfaces.
>
> Makes sense?
Does now. And based on what we have both finally stated clearly I think we
have been *thinking* about the same or similar solution.
Cheers,
Vaughn
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
