Antonio,
Yes, may be we can remove that restriction.
Out of curiosity, why not just remove the @Stateless annotation from the
abstract class?
I also use Abstract classes for DAO as well, and I never got such a big
issue with that. Isn't it?
Jean-Louis
2012/3/5 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> Since the beginning (well, as far as I remember) EJBs bean cannot be
> abstract :
>
> *4.9.2 - Session Bean Class*
> *The following are the requirements for the session bean class:*
>
> - *The class must be defined as public, must not be final, and must
> not be abstract. The class must be a top level class.*
>
>
> That's fine, I've always live with that. But at the moment I'm working on
> migrating a Spring application to Java EE 6. This project has very clever
> abstract Spring services and abstract Spring repositorie (DAOs). All
> services inherit from these ones. One guy (who doesn't know much EJBs)
> naturally turned them into abstract EJBs (abstract classes annotated with
> @Stateless). I was amazed to see that it was working on JBoss (but not on
> GlassFish).
>
> When I looked at this code, it made me wonder : why not having abstract
> EJBs ? if it works on JBoss why not making it work everywhere... and get
> closer to an OO approach ?
>
> Just wondering....
>
> Antonio
>
>