Hello Marina, John
If I may join this conversation - my question was rather similar to
John's.
On 22.11.2012 02:32, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> John D. Ament wrote:
>> Hi Marina,
>>
>> So I just want to confirm then. Is it your belief that the portable
>> JNDI locations should be used for both local and remote lookups, based
>> on the current spec (EJB 3.1)?
>
> I'm 100% sure the portable JNDI names are defined for both, remote
> and local views. See e.g. the example under "4.4.2.2 Session bean
> exposing multiple client views".
>
Yes, the remote views are also registered as portable JNDI names but I
believe the question is - should I, as a standalone client using the
remote business interface, can access the bean using portable JNDI name?
I'm sure that different applications within the same application server
can, without any problems, use the portable JNDI names. The question is
- can I as a standalone client use something like:
InvocationContext ctx = ...
MyBean mBean =
(MyBean)ctx.lookup("java:global/myApp/myModule/myBean!myRemoteItfFQN");
I'd assume that the connection properties are defined somewhere (this
could be even app-server dependent file / format.) What I would like to
achieve is to create a standalone client facade for remote EJB's and not
to be required to change the JNDI names of the EJB's when I change the
app-server (if I recall, I even have some problems between JBoss 6.1 and
JBoss AS 7.1)
Right now, e.g. in JBoss AS 7.1 we have the "ejb:" namespace and JNDI
names which are JBoss-specific.
Are the JNDI names for remote (standalone) clients not standardized?
What were the rationale behind not standardizing it?
Marina, could you explain (or point to some resource) about remote
client becoming optional in future Java EE releases?
Thanks in advance,
Piotr
> Best,
> -marina
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Marina Vatkina
>> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> The standard JNDI names are the same for remote and local
>> invocations. If you are asking about names that include host and
>> port of the target server, it's probably a no-go as the interop
>> (and even remote client) are targeted for becoming optional in
>> the
>> future Java EE version(s).
>>
>> Best,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>> John D. Ament wrote:
>>
>> Experts,
>>
>> A question was raised recently regarding Remote JNDI
>> locations. Currently, the specs define standardized local
>> JNDI names. There is no guarantee that the remote names
>> would
>> be the same. Is it possible to come up with standardized
>> naming conventions for remote EJBs (session beans) that can
>> be
>> looked up in a consistent manner across application servers?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>