> Ken Jenks wrote:
> > Here's the example:
> > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/entjbeans2/chapter/examples.html
>
> Most interesting. IMHO this is not the proper way to do this. As noted
> before, this is an EJB1.0-ish way of doing it, and that still is no good
> excuse.
>
> The proper way to do this is, IMnsHO, to package all beans as an
> application, with one EJB-JAR XML descriptor. That will make it
> substantially easier to manage this application.
yes!
marc
>
> Also, note that by keeping all beans in separate jars he is relying on
> the containers ability to link to other beans by way of a global JNDI
> namespace, which is something that is not mandated by the EJB or J2EE
> spec. The only way to make this app truly portable is to package them as
> an application, and as above, I would argue that this is a rather
> logical thing to do in this case.
>
> Makes sense?
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.telkel.com
> http://www.jboss.org
> http://www.dreambean.com
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
