[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: The default local interface (vs. EJBTHREE-785)

[wolfc]

"bill.burke at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | The spec says nothing about inheritance of interfaces.
"EJB 3 4.6.2" wrote : The session bean class may have superclasses and/or superinterfaces. If the session bean has superclasses, the business methods, lifecycle callback interceptor methods, the timeout callback method, the methods of the optional SessionSynchronization interface, the Init or ejbCreate methods, the Remove methods, and the methods of the SessionBean interface, may be de?ned in the session bean class, or in any of its superclasses. A session bean class must not have a superclass that is itself a session bean class.
  | 
Combined with 4.6.6 doesn't really allow for business interfaces to be defined by a superclass, but the water gets real murky. So I let EJBTHREE-785 pass.
"bill.burke at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | Nope, just read EJBTHREE_785.  What Gavin wants is this:
  | 
  | 
  |   | public class MyBean implements MyRemote {}
  |   | 
  |   | @Stateless
  |   | public class SubBean extends MyBean {}
  |   | 
  | Business interface of SubBean has a remote interface of MyRemote.
  | 
That's exactly what is working. It's EJBTHREE-1062 that has stopped working and the first scenario I sketched is an expectancy problem.
So we need to choice either option A or B.
I like A in the sense that it's closer to the spec and thus easier on the TCK. I like B because it is more closely aligned with EJBTHREE-785. It all depends on what you would expect to happen in the 'outside the box' scenarios. I need a definitive statement to bring it into the box.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4093359#4093359

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4093359