No I a really saying that the remoteable functionality of EJB should be incorporated into JPA transparently, as part of the enhancement process in order to make JPA more functional. We don't need to raw lines between EJB and JPA because at the end of the day we are just storeing things and a DB and retrieving them again.
-----Original Message----- From: Trenton D. Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 31 May 2010 3:26 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: equals, hashcode, toString, etc, and field access ----- "C N Davies" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "C N Davies" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:01:23 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: RE: equals, hashcode, toString, etc, and field access > > I think a remote interface is the way to go, it will allow for a > multi-vm lazy loading, the structure of which could later be > determined. One could argue that in this case we haven't gained much > over EJB 2.0, but that is my basic point in the first place:) So really, this would no longer be part of JPA, but instead EJB, where EJB takes note that the object being returned is remote-able, with an interface, and therefore marshals it into a proxy version. Is that what you're saying?
