geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Jndi names, need input (Re: [DISCUSS] G 2.0.2 Release plan)
Date Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:40:40 GMT

On Sep 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has been  
>> changed in OpenEJB. So, there is a compatibility issue with 2.0.1.  
>> We might be able to configure how OpenEJB generates this default  
>> to maintain backward compatibility. Better, IMO, to go ahead and  
>> match OpenEJB's behavior.
>
> There are no compatibility issues as it was explicitly set in  
> Geronimo 2.0.1 to be essentially {moduleId}/{ejbName}/ 
> {interfaceClass}  (actually it's {deploymentId}/{interfaceClass}  
> and deploymentId will be {moduleId}/{ejbName}).  It'll still be the  
> same in Geronimo 2.0.2, just now it can be changed to something  
> shorter.
>
> I'd be fine with Geronimo using the OpenEJB default of essentially  
> {ejbName}{interfaceType.annotationName} (it's {deploymentId} 
> {interfaceType.annotation} where deploymentId defaults to  
> {ejbName}), but it's definitely a default that targets people with  
> just a couple apps.  People in bigger environments would have to  
> set the jndiname and deploymentId formats to something less likely  
> to conflict.

Does anyone have any thoughts or preferences on this one?  Need to  
get some input from the group.

-David




Mime
View raw message