Hi Ken,
Yes, you're right. I know, understand, and agree that global JNDI names are primarily to be referenced, and aliases are published to managed components in their own naming environment. That's clear.
It's also clear that my program becomes less portable (or totally non-portable) if I hardcode names in either code or decriptors. That is absolutely right.
What is wrong. It's wrong, I believe, to enforce me to abandon extremely convenient approaches for building EE applications, which exploit free JNDI bindings, not providing me with alternatives. You don't provide alternatives, do you?
Why don't you want to leave it up to me? Why don't want to let me decide how much portability I want to expose in my own application?
If you wish I can bring a little bit more details on what is convenient for me in using global names.
Saying "me" I mean any developer.
Danis
[Message sent by forum member 'danissimo' (danissimo)]
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=218797