Funny and it is also wrong
I mean that a BEA director would say that...
Also he is wrong in saying that we did not implement it (is anyone following
what is going on here? :)
So Dan, you want to let the man know he is wrong.
anyway the dependent objects are a moving target in the spec so even though
WE (ok Dan) have implemented and BEA has not it is irrelevant since they are
probably going away.
Yeah, we can be fast... why? because we are composed of driven individuals.
We need to leverage it...
marc
PS: I am sorry if it doesn't make FULL sense right now, stay tuned!
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Braswell
|Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 9:12 PM
|To: JBoss-User
|Subject: [jBoss-User] Article Quote
|
|
|
|"Is all of this controversial? You bet it is. Despite
|the number of vendors that have embraced the EJB 2.0
|specification, I'm not aware of a single vendor that's
|implemented dependent objects, including BEA WebLogic
|and JBoss Server, which are usually the most updated
|implementations. It's likely that the confusion
|described here is felt by others in the industry too."
|
|The rest of the article can be found at:
|http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2001/02/28/ejb.html.
|
|
|cheers,
|peter
|
|__________________________________________________
|Do You Yahoo!?
|Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
|http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
|
|--
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
