[jboss-as7-dev] PART 3! of EJB Remote client design

[Stuart Douglas]

Appname would just be the same as the module name in this case. We discussed the syntax that you proposed, 
but decided that it would be cleaner this way.

Another option would be to allow 

ejb:app/module/c!interface

 but assume that if the shorted form is used it always means appName/moduleName (rather than moduleName/distinctName). If you are using a distinct name
you must specify appName/moduleName/distinctName, even if the appName and moduleName are the same.

Stuart 

On 22/09/2011, at 6:14 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:

> On Thursday 22 September 2011 01:25 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>> 
>> On 22/09/2011, at 5:34 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> 
>>> Comments inline.
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 22 September 2011 10:30 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>> Client JNDI Revisited!
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Based on feedback here and in IRC, we're changing our approach to client
>>>> EJB thus:
>>>> 
>>>> A new JNDI "scheme" will be introduced called "ejb".  Lookups into this
>>>> scheme following a naming convention will yield remote EJB proxies
>>>> directly.  If the interface is not stateful, then the proxy is
>>>> immediately available without a server round-trip.
>>>> 
>>>> The format for "ejb" scheme names is like this (square brackets are not
>>>> literal; they indicate that the enclosed section is optional):
>>>> 
>>>> "ejb:appname/modulename/[distinctname/]beanname!interface[?stateful]"
>>> The appname (assuming it's the .ear name that we talking of, like in the
>>> spec) should be optional too, isn't it? Although making appname optional
>>> might end up with non-deterministic jndi name like:
>>> 
>>> ejb:a/b/c!interface
>>> 
>>> and we wouldn't know whether:
>>> 
>>> 1) "a" is appname and "b" is module name
>>> or
>>> 2) "a" is module name and "b" is distinct name
>>> 
>> 
>> This problem is why we decided to make the app name required.
> What would a user specify as a value for appname when the application isn't deployed as a .ear? If we want the appname to have a consistent meaning, then I guess we could change the JNDI name syntax to:
> 
> "ejb:appname/modulename/beanname!interface[?stateful=(true|false) [&distinctname=<blah>]]"
> 
> [] brackets indicate optional
> () brackets indicate allowed values
> <> indicates some value
> 
> -Jaikiran