[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJBTHREE-786

[bdecoste]

Sorry, I'm playing catchup.

Unless I'm missing something, his has nothing to do with the way we bind into JNDI. The developer currently has the option to bind home and business interfaces to the same name - the proxy will support both. However, the user also has the option to bind the 3 interfaces to different names (this is the default).

Carlo, are you suggesting that we have two different proxies - one that supports EJBObject and one that does not so that there is no clash between EJBLocalObject.remove() and a business remove()?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090408#4090408

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4090408