Thank you. It seems to me an important enough point that we should at
least have
a good debate while there is still a chance that this can be fixed.
Evan Ireland wrote:
> Dibyendu,
>
> Some of the EJB 3.0 expert group members agree with you,
> but not enough to make a difference. I think that if we were to
> hear from enough EJB users that they want this feature, it will
> happen, but probably in a subsequent release.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dibyendu Majumdar [mailto:dibyendu_at_mazumdar.demon.co.uk]
>> Sent: Friday, 3 March 2006 9:10 a.m.
>> To: ejb_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> Cc: ejb3-pfd-feedback_at_sun.com
>> Subject: Re: Enhancement to @EJB annotation
>>
>>
>> Yes, I understand that, but:
>>
>> If the client is explicitly saying that they want Local or Remote
>> interface, then surely there is no problem. After all, this is exactly
>> what is achieved by having separate interfaces.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Gavin King wrote:
>>
>>> Local invocation has fundamentally different semantics to remote
>>> invocation, so allowing a single interface to be remote and local
>>> simultaneously is disallowed by the spec.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dibyendu Majumdar [mailto:dibyendu_at_mazumdar.demon.co.uk]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:59 PM
>>> To: Gavin King
>>> Cc: ejb_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; ejb3-pfd-feedback_at_sun.com
>>> Subject: Re: Enhancement to @EJB annotation
>>>
>>> Hello Gavin,
>>>
>>> Would you elaborate on the reasons?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Gavin King wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This was discussed a number of times, and we decided not to go there.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dibyendu Majumdar [mailto:dibyendu_at_mazumdar.demon.co.uk]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:45 PM
>>>> To: ejb_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; ejb3-pfd-feedback_at_sun.com
>>>> Subject: Enhancement to @EJB annotation
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest an enhancement to @EJB annotation so that the
>>>> client can specify whether the local or remote interface is desired.
>>>> This way, we can avoid the "antipattern" described by Sahoo
>>>> (apologies,
>>>> Sahoo!) in the discussion at:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=13366&tstart=0
>>>>
>>>> This method will a) allow EJBs to be coded as POJOs, and b) mimic the
>>>> approach in earlier versions of EJB where the client had to explicitly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> decide on the type of interface.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>>
>>>> Dibyendu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ejb-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ejb-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>