No, I mean no, as in "no, I don't want it" :(.
-marina
Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> You mean "no" as in "no opposition", right? :-)
>
> Carlo
>
> On 03/14/2012 07:07 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Experts,
>>
>> I'd like to close on this item. If I don't get any supporting replies
>> soon, I would treat it as a no.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>>> Right now it is possible to define additional JNDI bindings via @EJB
>>> on the bean class. The bean developer is required however to make
>>> the reference fully resolvable.
>>>
>>> @Stateless
>>> @Local (Echo.class)
>>> @EJB(name = "java:global/Additional", beanName = "SampleSLSB",
>>> beanInterface = Echo.class)
>>> public class SampleSLSB implements Echo {
>>> }
>>>
>>> It would be nice if the default bean referenced in a class level
>>> @EJB would be the current bean. Furthermore if only 1 bean interface
>>> is exposed, just reference that one.
>>>
>>> @Stateless
>>> @Local (Echo.class)
>>> @EJB(name = "java:global/Additional")
>>> public class SampleSLSB implements Echo {
>>> }
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Carlo
>