Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41605874.6060001@gluecode.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:52:20 -0700
From: Jeremy Boynes <jboynes@gluecode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Resource ref as dependency; WAS: Multiple Inheritance
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0410030901030.4765@saturn.opentools.org>
 <99BB6DF2-154D-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com>
 <20041003164018.GC2686@caboteria.org> <41605271.5030406@gluecode.com>
 <49247C4F-1573-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com>
In-Reply-To: <49247C4F-1573-11D9-B7E9-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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