On 05.07.2011, at 16:54, Pete Muir wrote:
> Yes, we would need to define a way to do remote injection, CDI style. Perhaps this should be in the EJB spec?
>
> In other words we would
>
> * deprecate @EJB
+1
> * add a syntax for @Inject style remote injection
++1
A javax.ejb.Remote qualifier would solve the issue.
>
> On 5 Jul 2011, at 15:51, Reza Rahman wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>>
>> I agree this is worth doing, but I think this has to be a pretty low priority item given that few people do remoting today (vis-a-vis REST, etc).
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure whether this belongs in the CDI spec or EJB spec. I think in order to retain consistency, it might be better to keep this is the EJB spec since @Remote is defined here (unless CDI remote injection can truly be location transparent). As we fix this, it might also be a good idea to finally define a standard way of locating the remote bean (or at least a way to define the remote server). Maybe something like:
>>
>> @Inject @Remote(server="someserver.somedomain.com") RemoteBean bean;
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Reza
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2011 7:51 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>> The big advantage of this is that it means users as less confused about when to use @EJB and when to use @Inject.
>>>
>>> The (dis)advantage is that a user cannot use EJB standalone (not sure this is really an issue).
>>>
>>> I think we should do this.
>>>
>>> One thing we need to address though, is remote injection - CDI does not support this (we could investigate this for CDI 1.1 of course).
>>>
>>> On 4 Jul 2011, at 12:31, Adam Bien wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we deprecate @EJB in favor of @Inject? I would like to file this issue :-)
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --adam
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3738 - Release Date: 07/01/11
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>