Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43765 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2004 20:31:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2004 20:31:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 68117 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2004 20:31:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 67928 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2004 20:31:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 67915 invoked by uid 99); 3 Oct 2004 20:31:45 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.136.173.57] (HELO smtp013.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.173.57) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:31:45 -0700 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.105?) (david?jencks@66.93.38.137 with plain) by smtp013.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2004 20:31:44 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <41605874.6060001@gluecode.com> References: <99BB6DF2-154D-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com> <20041003164018.GC2686@caboteria.org> <41605271.5030406@gluecode.com> <49247C4F-1573-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com> <41605874.6060001@gluecode.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3C03FD50-157B-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Jencks Subject: Re: Resource ref as dependency; WAS: Multiple Inheritance Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:31:41 -0700 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N yes, but is there anything preventing circular ejb references between ejbs in 2 or more ejb-jars in a single ear? david jencks On Oct 3, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > David Jencks wrote: >> I agree, this is a good idea. Lets have the default value for the >> flag be "mandatory", i.e you only include the flag when it is >> optional. We can presumably do the same with ejb-refs from web apps >> to ejbs? I don't think we can have dependencies between ejbs since >> there can be circular references. > > CMP EJBs will also have dependencies for the CMRs between them (as > well as the dependency on the CMP data store which will not be an > ejb-ref). I agree that resolving those will be problematic. > > Perhaps the compromise is to bundle the dependencies at the EJBModule > level rather than at the individual EJB level - this would mirror the > model at the web layer where they are define for the WebApplication > not individual servlets. > > In other words, an ejb-ref from a WebApplication would depend on the > EJBModule that contained the target EJB not the individual EJB. > Similarly, individual EJB's ejb-refs would be rolled up into > dependencies from their EJBModule to the EJBModules of the targets. > > -- > Jeremy >