[jboss-user] [EJB 3.0] - Re: Local and Remote interfaces required in EJB3

[esfahan]

Sure, I understand that the client only gets a proxy to some interfaces and the bean implementation has of course to stay on the server. What I don't understand is why this interfaces could not be generated dynamically. 

For example using some imaginary annoations here:

@Stateful 
  | @Local (interface="FooLocal")
  | public class FooBean  
  | { 
  |   @LocalMethod 
  |   public void foo(); 
  | 
  |   @LocalMethod 
  |   public void bar(); 
  | }

Wouldn't this be enough information for creating the client interface:

public interface FooLocal
  | {
  |   public void foo(); 
  |   public void bar(); 
  | }

Given you would stick to some sort of naming standard you could provide even default values for the names of the local and remote interfaces.

Of course FooBean does not implement an interface now anymore, but invocations could be handled by some sort of dynamic proxy, right?

--Hardy



View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3978628#3978628

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3978628