Mikal Henriksen wrote:
I've done some more research, and I guess what it boils down to is that the client needs to know that name (whether default or custom); the interface alone plus the connection to the server is not enough to lookup and connect to the remote implementation.
Of course it has to know the name of the bean it is trying to communicate with. A remote interface can be implemented by multiple beans. So it's upto the client to tell the server which bean it is interested in communicating with.
Mikal Henriksen wrote:
Are there other approaches I can use to streamline this? Is this something domain deployment would help with?
Why are you trying to avoid the bean name usage?