To preface, I appreciate the hard work and effort on this important project.
I hate to be abrupt, but this new JNDI name resolution behavior versus beta 1 is unusable for large applications. (Actually, in my opinion, even error prone for small applications). Beta 1 was simple, straightforward, and safe. Beta 2 is a recipe for naming conflicts. What I'd like to see is Seam return to the beta 1 behavior that resolved using fully qualified class names. Seam beta 1 discovered JNDI names using: return localInterfaces.iterator().next().getName(); Beta 2 on the other hand now purposefully unqualifies class names to do JNDI resolution: unqualifyClassName(clazz); What was wrong with resolving by fully qualified class name? It requires far less safety precautions and duplicated effort on the part of the programmer. This new unqualfiied resolution approach is going to cause one to either write far more annotations to avoid JNDI naming conflicts, OR rename same-named classes that are in different packages. Package structures naturally resolve naming conflicts all by themselves, why throw that away? Please see this topic for more information and examples: http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=77039 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3922461#3922461 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3922461 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
