On 7/22/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I went down the rabbit hole, feedback requested. Should we chase this rabbit?
Sure, every time, every day! :)
There are some ugly things which I threw in just to get things to work via spring. I'd like to find a way to remove them, any ideas welcome. Don't care for the "transactionManager" and the "assembly" attributes of "<deployments...>. Needed these more or less just because the way the code is organized. Kind of ugly. What I dislike the most about the prototype is the complete and total overuse of the container ID in several different places. It's not just ugly, but easy to get wrong. I spent a whole day stepping through code in a debugger just to realize I put the wrong ID in one <addDeployments to="blah" ...>. The kicker is that it's an object *inside* the <statelessContainer> (and other) element, so why should I have to specify the name of the container I'm *in*. There's likely a better way to do all this, but the good part is we at least know it isn't a failed idea. We can probably hammer out something better we think this is something people will like.
It seems to be a good chance to ask about it. Haven't looked at the code enough to figure it out myself. What role has Spring taken? How is it used? Are we going towards a solution that's built from a couple of ejb containers (I mean an slsb container, cmp container, and such) and have it assembled as OpenEJB 3 via a Spring configuration? I don't understand that piece and although I could find it out myself looking at the code, I thought I'd ask to get a clear(er) picture rather than drawing false conclusions. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
