Ok, I would think that some language in the spec to hint at this might
be good, as instances of session beans elsewhere in the spec implies a
EJB reference.
On 29 Mar 2009, at 18:04, Gavin King wrote:
Yes, this is a good question - the 299 implementation would need
direct integration with the EJB container for this. (Not the only
place this is needed.)
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey
>
> Not quite sure how this is supposed to work as everywhere we hold a
> reference (proxy) to the EJB, and therefore don't have access to the
> instance and therefore can't get hold of the fields. Any pointers?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Pete Muir
>
http://www.seamframework.org
>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>
>
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org
--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete