John,
Let's make sure we don't miss it next time.
thanks,
-marina
On 5/7/13 4:26 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Marina,
>
> Thanks for confirming. Note that I created
> https://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-105 ; since it seems that
> certain implementors disagree. I was hoping something could be added
> (what exactly, I'm not sure) to clarify this.
>
> John
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Marina Vatkina
> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm going through emails that I missed, and this might be one of
> those.
>
> The standard JNDI names are expected to be used by all clients
> (assuming that the connection properties are defined somewhere).
>
> Best,
> -marina
>
>
> On 1/29/13 4:06 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> Hi Marina,, experts,
>>
>> I wanted to revive this thread a little bit. I think Piotr had
>> raised some questions that needed some more feedback. Any chance
>> you could provide?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Piotr Nowicki
>> <info_at_piotrnowicki.com <mailto:info_at_piotrnowicki.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>