"Falcor1" wrote : | | I do realize that I could produce 2 separate jars, one with interfaces only and one with implementation. | | That seems like a bit of a maintenance hassle though and complicates the build process. | | It's not about a maintenance hassle, it's actually the right way to do it. The .sar is a client of the EJB and hence should only have the bean interfaces and not the implementation class. Including the implementation class is equivalent to deploying a new bean. "Falcor1" wrote : | Another downside is that @Stateless defaults the mapped name attribute to the implementation class, so the clients of my stateless session beans look them up by using | | Implementation.class.getSimpleName() + "/remote" | | I guess I could explicitly set the mapped name to the interface, but again thats more work and more maintenance. Yes, that's the default. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266562#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...