geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:36:09 GMT

been offline for 36hrs with ISP failure...

Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Greg's is much larger, but I have reservations about the actual data model.
> For example, EJB extends JNDINameable but MDB's do not have a JNDI binding.
> I am also confused about the meaning of JNDINameable as both EJB and EJBRef
> are subclasses but the jndi-name element has very different meaning between
> them.

JNDINameable probably should be an interface and just mixed in when needed.
I think it is not genrally applicable to put geronimo types in to the
extends inheritance tree.

> We also seemed to have lost the JNDIEnvironmentRefs interface used by
> ComponentContextBuilder so (and I admit I have not tested it) I am curious
> about how it works.

That's an oops that I fixed up in my tree.  I'll fix that and put another patch
in soon.

I think we are going to have problems evaluating the two approaches at the moment
as we have so little geronimo specific configuration in the tree(s).

What I'd like to propose as a way forward is that I commit my patch to create
a single tree (with the naming issues fixed and the issues Jeremy pointed out
addressed). As this is definitely the simplest solution with the least code.

If Aaron and others really want dual trees, then a patch can be prepared
against the single tree to move the geronimo config to a second tree, and we
can discuss that once we have some more geronimo specific configuration to
help resolve various approached.


View raw message