On Oct 2, 2007, at 7:02 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Ok, I made the following changes:
- Set the deployment id format to {appId}/{moduleId}/{ejbName}
(fixes GERONIMO-3199)
- Set jndiname format to {ejbName}{interfaceType.annotationName}
(this MUST go in the release notes as it will be a si
On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I talked with david a bit on irc and he tells me there is a flag so
we can set it so if there is a non-javaee jndi name conflict we log
an error instead of throwing an exception.
I'm happy with a simple default format for non-javaee jndi ejb
On Sep 29, 2007, at 3:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:31 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Sep 28, 2007, at 8:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the defau
On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:31 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Sep 28, 2007, at 8:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has
been changed in OpenEJB.
On Sep 28, 2007, at 8:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has
been changed in OpenEJB. So, there is a compatibility issue with
2.0.1. We
On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has been
changed in OpenEJB. So, there is a compatibility issue with 2.0.1.
We might be able to configure how OpenEJB generates this
