"rdewell" wrote : 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.
We are very interested in feedback on JBoss EJB3, and if this is really a problem we can change it. But I'm just not convinced that it is at all common to have two bean classes with the same name in the same EAR. My intuition is that this shows up as an issue more because something has *changed* than because it was a bad idea. My feeling is that if this was how it had always been, you would not really have noticed ;) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3922474#3922474 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3922474 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
