OpenEJB
public interface OurX {
Y a();
}
public class OurXImpl {
Y a() { return doSomething(); }
}
The problem with the above approach is that there is existing code like
belowpublic X getXImpl(){
return new OurXImpl(); // this would not compile because OurXImpl is a
OurX, but not a X
}
Dynamic proxy 1.5 {
public class Ximpl implements X {
private final OurXImpl x;
Y a() { return x.a(); }
}
Dynamic proxy 1.6 {
public class Ximpl implements X {
private final OurXImpl x;
Y a() { return x.a(); }
Z b() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException(); }
}
If we are okay with providing two different impls for 1.5 and 1.6, then do
we need a dynamic proxy for it?
This should work. Alternatively, we could, as David suggested, try
to ship our own version of the missing javax.sql classes. I'm not
sure what is easiest.
I tried this and this was the easiest to do. But I am not sure of the
licensing issues i.e are we allowed to specify fully qualified Class names
which match class names in JDK?
-dain
--
Karan Malhi
