I'm not sure the history of our goals in implementation, but taking from the perspective of an application developer: Isn't the concept of "partially-realized" confusing? An EJB2.1 view that's only callable from a EJB3.0 client? Why? An EJB should have the following possible views: EJB3.0, EJB2.1, or both, with nothing inbetween. Anything half-defined should throw a descriptive Exception to the bean provider on deploy. Propose the following: * Close 1058 as invalid/not a bug * Fix RemoteUnitTestCase.testEJBObject() to pass by changing org.jboss.ejb3.test.stateful.Stateful to extend EJBObject. * Open a new issue, redefining the case outlined in 1058 but stipulating that the container should throw an exception on deploy. Remote interface w/ no home is an incomplete 2.1 view. * Open a new issue for the inverse: Home interface with no Remote interface is an incomplete 2.1 view. Benefits here: * We don't have to guess/infer what the intent of the bean provider was to expose * We give clear failures on deployment as to why an EJB with partially-implemented 2.1 views to the bean provider. Invite those with more experience w/ Spec interpretation to invalidate this argument. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092280#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...