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

[pete.muir@jboss.org]

Coming at this from a Seam (i.e. people using EJB3) perspective:

"bdecoste" wrote : Having our proxies implement EJBObject is to be backwards compatible to EJB2.1 clients - isn't that a major point of the spec? I know the details aren't there, but the spirit of the spec is to be 2.1 client compatible.

Actually I thought *the* major point of EJB3 was to remove the arbitrary restrictions on what you can and can't do with your EJBs.  Saying 'no, you can't define a method with the signature remove() on your business interface' strikes me as pretty arbitrary (from a user perspective).  At the very least the current exception message is rubbish.

anonymous wrote : Again, can't we just tell SEAM to change their method name 

You can tell Gavin many things, it doesn't mean he listens ;)

anonymous wrote : and disallow EJBObject methods on Remote interfaces like EJB2.1 does?

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but surely we are talking about Local and Remote interfaces (currently this exception is thrown for both) - if this restriction applies to just Remote interfaces it would be a start ;)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090584#4090584

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4090584