"pete.muir(a)jboss.org" wrote : "ALRubinger" wrote : 4) Keep implementation as it current stands, but add new metadata (ie. @NoEjb2View) which will designate that we shouldn't have EJBObject be implemented by the Proxy. Benefit here is that we keep support to EJB3.0 and EJB2.1 clients by default, and provide mechanism for Seam to have their "remove" method. | | This strikes me as a ugly. Is there no way this can be detected automatically or something? (and use an annotation as an override). It's ugly because it puts the responsibility on the bean provider to dictate that his EJB won't supprt EJBObject methods. But what else can we use to detect automatically? Test for method signature collision and if so, don't implement EJBObject/EJBLocalObject? I don't think that's very intuitive to an application developer. There's Carlo's suggestion that we create 2 Proxies; one to implement the Business Interface only (EJB3.0), and the other to support EJBObject/EJBLocalObject as well. I've listed some drawbacks to that approach; how do we feel this proposal? Any other's to weigh in on my recommendation of 4) ? S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090748#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...