Re: [jboss-as7-dev] PART 3! of EJB Remote client design

On 09/22/2011 03:52 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote: > On 09/22/2011 07:00 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote: >> Client JNDI Revisited! >> ---------------------- >> >> Based on feedback here and in IRC, we're changing our approach to >> client >> EJB thus: >> >> A new JNDI "scheme" will be introduced called "ejb". Lookups into this >> scheme following a naming convention will yield remote EJB proxies >> directly. If the interface is not stateful, then the proxy is >> immediately available without a server round-trip. >> >> The format for "ejb" scheme names is like this (square brackets are not >> literal; they indicate that the enclosed section is optional): >> >> "ejb:appname/modulename/[distinctname/]beanname!interface[?stateful]" >> >> The "appname", "modulename", and "distinctname" are the identifying >> names of the EJB deployment. "beanname" is the EJB-spec name of the >> EJB. "interface" is the Java type name of the interface being returned. >> The "?stateful" query parameter indicates that a session should be >> initiated on lookup. >> >> Since it is likely that users will erroneously use "?stateful" on a >> stateful home interface (which is itself stateless), the lookup code >> will detect whether the interface extends EJBHome before attempting to >> initiate session, and if found will instead emit a warning. > > Both a SLSB and a SFSB can have an EJBHome interface for their remote > home view. So I don't see how this can play a role in determining the > session characteristic. > > In fact a call to a home view is always session-less, both for SLSB and > SFSB. The proxy returned by the create method represents the possible > session. That's what I said. EJBHome are always stateless. Therefore if ?stateful is given for an EJBHome, it is ignored and a warning is issued.

>> This gives us configuration-free JNDI. Also, it gives us a JNDI name >> scheme we can use in server-side EJB references as a lookup-name which >> can create dependency-free injections of remote EJBs that may not be >> present on the current system. And it's also nice in that it doesn't >> interfere with "java:" spec lookups at all. >> >> This should address all the issues raised with client JNDI thus far. >> > > Binding the URL ObjectFactory to java:something would result in exactly > the same functionality. We can still offer this choice to users. Except that "java:" belongs to EE, and this is very much non-spec. I don't think this type of functionality belongs in "java:" under any circumstances.