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

[ALRubinger]

"pete.muir at jboss.org" wrote : So, from the Seam perspective: 
  | 
  | * very few users have EJB2 views and most are going to be using *just* EJB3
  | 
  | * making them put @JBossEJBStuff on every interface/class isn't very nice so I would like to avoid this if at all possible.
  | 
  | 

I hear and agree with both of these points.

"pete.muir at jboss.org" wrote : 
  | 
  | * We still have the corner case of a user wanting both EJB2 and to use the Seam framework (maybe this is something we document as just not working for now)
  | 
  | 

Carlo's double-proxy solution solves this, as does Bill B's suggestion to only have the proxy implement EJBObject if the interface itself extends EJBObject

"pete.muir at jboss.org" wrote : 
  | 
  | I have a feeling a global metadata with an annotation either way (@NoEjb2View, @Ejb2View) could work? What the default is I don't know. I would argue for NoEjb2View obviously, but I don't know if that works for the TCK (it sounds from Bill like it does). 
  | 
  | 

I like the ability to set global metadata for this property (unless overridden by annotation), though I think a default of NoEjb2View conflicts with Spec 3.6:

The remainder of this chapter describes the Session Bean client view defined by the EJB 2.1 and earlier specifications. Support for the definition and use of these earlier client interfaces is required to be provided by implementations of the EJB 3.0 specification.

...and is further defined in 3.6.4.

S,
ALR

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090763#4090763

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4090763