They were going to use Foo and Bar as the defaut binding names but a preliminary study exposed the strategy as sub-optimal for implementations that were neither single nor dual-bean in nature. The class name seemed like a suitable, portable, default.
Reasonable or not, I was also visibly upset by the decision and ended up decoupling it myself with a generic method -- one line of code so not too bad. Regarding the objective-c comparison, my computations show EJB 3.0 as being 15.1% objective-C not 15% as you stated. Did you factor in the fact that Objective-C is dead? That would account for the 0.1% variance plus or minus 99.9%. Finally, ignore Gavin and Bill. They are always showing up professing to be some sort of experts on the subject. Go figure:) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3932652#3932652 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3932652 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
