Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> I stand corrected. I just assumed that you defined the class in the bean
> impl. I still wouldn't recoment it just because if find it anoying to type
> Parrent.InnerClass return type.
Hey, it's not so bad - now I just have to write Agent.Data instead of
AgentData :
> Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree entirely:
>
> 1. the value object is effectively part of the interface because it is
> what is returned by the getData methods etc. So the client has to have
> access to it and I don't see anything drastically wrong with having the
> data bean as an inner class of the
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
> In general, it is not really to use an innerclass as a type in a public api.
> In EJB it is a worse Idea. I think the verifier is complaining that your
> class is not serializable. On page 217 of Josh Block's book Effective Java
> her states "Inner classes
our app.
-dain
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 9:59 AM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Apparent bug in Verifier - static inner classes as
valid RMI/IIOP types
Hi all,
Can't get any access to Sourceforge so posting he
