joe-2 wrote: > >> Since EJB 3.1, a bean is not required to implement an interface (@local >> or >> @remote). > > OK, but this makes only sence for local EJBs? > Cause in EJB 3.0 i use the Remote Interface to reference the EJB. > So i guess for RemoteEJBs this explicit Remote-Interface is still needed? > Definitely.
-- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/testing-Local-Remote-tp1474295p1475464.html Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
