geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:17:43 GMT
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> > ...Displayable->ejb.Ejb->ejb.RpcBean->ejb.Session->geronimo.ejb.Session
> 
> But geronimo.ejb.Session should extend geronimo.ejb.EJB
> 
> Or are you saying that we just just don't have a geronimo.ejb.EJB class
> and multiple implement it's methods in geronimo.ejb.Session,
> geronimo.ejb.Entity etc.

	Yes, I'm saying skip the geronimo.ejb.EJB.  It would currently
have no properties beyond what ejb.EJB has, and later would support only
the most basic (pool size perhaps?).  geronimo.ejb.RpcBean, if it existed,
would have a JndiName.  You're introducing an awful lot to avoid writing a
very few properties in both Session and Entity -- it's really not worth
it.

> I don't know if that works as well as making the standard ones interfaces.
> If the standard elements are interfaces, then I think we can implement
> the POJOs with only a single implementation of every method.  If the
> standard elements are POJOs then we are going to have to do multiple
> implementations methods on geronimo.ejb.EJB etc.

	I'm not sure I agree.  Some classes have a description only.  Some 
have a display name only.  Others have a display name and a description.  
How can you have a single implementation of getDescription and 
getDisplayName?

> There should be no problem generating the standard J2EE DDs using the
> geronimo POJOs.  You should be able to use the geronomo instances via
> the standard interfaces and thus you will not know about the extra
> geronimo methods unless you want to.

	Perhaps, but it seems like a bit of a runaround.  If someone can 
edit both the J2EE and Geronimo DDs separately, then we have two complete 
Geronimo DD trees in memory?  I don't think this is better.

> So I still favour making the standard beans the interfaces.  Just to
> be clear, here is the code snippets that I'm proposing again.

	(code omitted)

> Note that as the Geronimo instances are the only concrete ones,
> then we will always be creating Geronimo objects.  Thus I would
> propose that the standards interfaces do not have setters, only
> getters.

	That is clearly unacceptable.  You say above that I can use the 
J2EE interfaces to edit J2EE DDs, and below that the J2EE interfaces have 
no setters.

	But that aside, I still disagree with this approach.  You're
adding a whole lot of complexity and baggage to save yourself the writing
of getJndiName in more than one place.  This is silly.  Of the properties
that need to go in the Geronimo classes, about 5% would go in "EJB", as
opposed to 95% in "Session", "Entity", or "MessageDriven".  If you just 
leave out geronimo.ejb.EJB, then all these problems go away.

Aaron


Mime
View raw message