You should be able to depend upon a String for POJOs. On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 15:01 +0100, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: > It currently returns Collection<String>. Are there reasons not to change > it to Collection<ObjectName> instead? We still need ObjectName's at the end. > > Alexey > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 15:23 +0100, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: > This is for EJBs. We pass dependencies to the ServiceController which > asks for ObjectName's. Yes, but I'm saying that is wrong. The old register(ObjectName name, Collection<ObjectName> dependencies) is ok for backwards compatibily, but it isn't flexible enough to do everything we want to do going forward, like have an EJB depend on a POJO. The EJB metadata is correct, the legacy ServiceController api is too restrictive. > Adrian wrote: >> You should be able to depend upon a String for POJOs. >> >> On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 15:01 +0100, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: >>> It currently returns Collection<String>. Are there reasons not to change >>> it to Collection<ObjectName> instead? We still need ObjectName's at the end. >>> >>> Alexey >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-development mailing list >>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development