Coming at this from a Seam (i.e. people using EJB3) perspective:
"bdecoste" wrote : Having our proxies implement EJBObject is to be backwards
compatible to EJB2.1 clients - isn't that a major point of the spec? I know the
details aren't there, but the spirit of the spec is to be 2.1 client compatible.
Actually I thought *the* major point of EJB3 was to remove the arbitrary restrictions on
what you can and can't do with your EJBs. Saying 'no, you can't define a
method with the signature remove() on your business interface' strikes me as pretty
arbitrary (from a user perspective). At the very least the current exception message is
rubbish.
anonymous wrote : Again, can't we just tell SEAM to change their method name
You can tell Gavin many things, it doesn't mean he listens ;)
anonymous wrote : and disallow EJBObject methods on Remote interfaces like EJB2.1 does?
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but surely we are talking about Local and Remote interfaces
(currently this exception is thrown for both) - if this restriction applies to just Remote
interfaces it would be a start ;)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090584#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...