Hi!
Todd Huss wrote:
> Would the prefix automatically be applied to EJB's?
Yes.
> If so my problem with
> it, is as follows:
>
> In an ideal world, if you decide to deploy an EJB on a different server
> then it used to be on, it should be transparent to the client so the
> client really shouldn't have to change how it does its JNDI lookup. A
> prefix would require changing the client code whenever you moved an EJB or
> maintaining a map of references to real JNDI names which could become very
> large.
Well, today whenever you change EJB server you will have to change your
client settings. All that this fix would do from a clients point of view
is to change so that clients are only affected if the JNDI server
changes. I.e. you can move around EJB's on different servers without
affecting the clients. If you change the JNDI server however you will
have to change both EJB prefix in your deployment config, as well as
client configuration with regard to JNDI provider URL.
So, given this, why are you opposed to the prefix? To me it seems to
improve the situation, and not make it worse.
/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]
