Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/27/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this would simplify configuration for users. Could we log a warning (that can be enabled/disabled) at deploy time identifying extended features are being utilised? Putting myself in users shoes, I would like to use these extensions, but would like a way of identifying which apps are using them and what extended features are being used in case I need to migrate my apps to another server, but don't wan't to see warning messages day to day during normal operation. I'm not really in favor of the log messages -- we have too many extensions. I am in favor of keeping the feature as presently implemented. +1 +1 -dain It was just an idea.. I'm happy keeping the feature as is. John
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/27/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this would simplify configuration for users. Could we log a warning (that can be enabled/disabled) at deploy time identifying extended features are being utilised? Putting myself in users shoes, I would like to use these extensions, but would like a way of identifying which apps are using them and what extended features are being used in case I need to migrate my apps to another server, but don't wan't to see warning messages day to day during normal operation. I'm not really in favor of the log messages -- we have too many extensions. I am in favor of keeping the feature as presently implemented. +1 +1 -dain
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/27/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this would simplify configuration for users. Could we log a warning (that can be enabled/disabled) at deploy time identifying extended features are being utilised? Putting myself in users shoes, I would like to use these extensions, but would like a way of identifying which apps are using them and what extended features are being used in case I need to migrate my apps to another server, but don't wan't to see warning messages day to day during normal operation. I'm not really in favor of the log messages -- we have too many extensions. I am in favor of keeping the feature as presently implemented. +1 Thanks, Aaron David Jencks wrote: > As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I > extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we > want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: > > ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an > ear. > > The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and > any ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in > web.xml to an ejb in a parent ejb module. > > We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these > semantics. > > If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the > unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. > > To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I > want to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of > trunk: I plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. > > thanks > david jencks > >
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
On 7/27/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this would simplify configuration for users. Could we log a warning (that can be enabled/disabled) at deploy time identifying extended features are being utilised? Putting myself in users shoes, I would like to use these extensions, but would like a way of identifying which apps are using them and what extended features are being used in case I need to migrate my apps to another server, but don't wan't to see warning messages day to day during normal operation. I'm not really in favor of the log messages -- we have too many extensions. I am in favor of keeping the feature as presently implemented. Thanks, Aaron David Jencks wrote: > As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I > extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we > want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: > > ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an > ear. > > The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and > any ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in > web.xml to an ejb in a parent ejb module. > > We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these > semantics. > > If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the > unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. > > To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I > want to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of > trunk: I plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. > > thanks > david jencks > >
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
I think this would simplify configuration for users. Could we log a warning (that can be enabled/disabled) at deploy time identifying extended features are being utilised? Putting myself in users shoes, I would like to use these extensions, but would like a way of identifying which apps are using them and what extended features are being used in case I need to migrate my apps to another server, but don't wan't to see warning messages day to day during normal operation. Regards, John David Jencks wrote: As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an ear. The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and any ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in web.xml to an ejb in a parent ejb module. We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these semantics. If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I want to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of trunk: I plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. thanks david jencks
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
I think it is a benefit to a user. They might be surprised when it doesn't work in another Appserver. So long as we don't break compliance I think we should keep it. David Jencks wrote: As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an ear. The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and any ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in web.xml to an ejb in a parent ejb module. We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these semantics. If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I want to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of trunk: I plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. thanks david jencks
Re: Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
I think extended functionality is good. As long as it doesn't violate or break our spec compliance, why not allow it to do more? I am in support of extended functionality. Jeff David Jencks wrote: > As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I > extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we > want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: > > ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an ear. > > The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and any > ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in web.xml > to an ejb in a parent ejb module. > > We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these > semantics. > > If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the > unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. > > To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I want > to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of trunk: I > plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. > > thanks > david jencks
Should we allow more ejb-links than j2ee specifies?
As part of work on GERONIMO-2148 fixing ejb-refs between modules I extended (or made work) some non-j2ee functionality and I wonder if we want it. I think we do. Lets see if I can describe the functionality: ejb-link in a j2ee app is only supposed to work between modules in an ear. The extended functionality is to make it work between a j2ee app and any ancestor j2ee app. For instance, a war can have an ejb-link in web.xml to an ejb in a parent ejb module. We already let you put an ejb-link in geronimo-web.xml with these semantics. If we agree that we want this extended functionality we can remove the unused targetModuleId parameter from EJBReferenceBuilder methods. To be clear, 1.1.1 currently has this extended functionality and I want to know if I should remove it. I'm not sure about the state of trunk: I plan to reexamine this after 1.1.1 is settled. thanks david jencks
