I suppose it's ultimately a matter of aesthetics and it does have workarounds. However, it is just one more thing I and others are going to have to keep in mind while developing: "Does this unqualified class name conflict with a class name in another *package*. If so, then I have to give it a different JNDI name, etc." Honestly I have enough stuff to keep in the back of mind, and I'll hate to have this lurking back there as well.
I did already run into this problem on multiple beans (Login, Home, Support, and undetermined others), in two different web applications, existing in two different package prefixes. IMO, the fully qualified class names should be enough to isolate the beans, period. These two web applications most certainly belong in the same EAR as they share entities and other core classes. To solve the old problem and this new problem, why not use a combination approach like "EAR Name / FQ Class Name / local"? It's your project and I'm currently one user with this problem, but looking ahead it just feels like an unnecessary and avoidable source of potential conflict. Ryan View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3922472#3922472 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3922472 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
