geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anita Kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: MEJB changes and MappedName
Date Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:02:53 GMT

--- Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:

> We've been hitting some errors in the TCK tests that validate mgmt
> with 
> MEJB.  The main problem was that we were failing the name lookup:
> 
> javax.naming.NameNotFoundException: Name 
>
"java:openejb/Deployment/MEJBGBean/MEJB/javax.management.j2ee.Management"
> 
> not found
> 
> I thought this was strange because we don't include the MEJBGBean any
> 
> longer in the geronimo assembly and I could find no reference to it
> in 
> the Geronimo code at all.
> 
> It turns out that we map to the "GBEAN" name when there is no
> mappedName 
> specified in the Openejb code.  In
> o.a.openejb.config.GeronimoMappedName 
> at line 65 there is this piece of code which Geronimo is apparently
> very 
> dependent upon
> 
> if (null == mappedName && ref.getEjbRefName().equals("ejb/MEJB")) {
>      ref.setMappedName("MEJBGBean/MEJB");
> }

    I believe this code is there because the old MEJB was a plain
GBean. I am not very familiar with openejb code. This code is probably
not needed any more. If we do not want to release antoher openejb, we
could try making MEJBGBean a 'nop' EJB. This is not gong to be any less
ugly..

The following code in MEJBGBean (geronimo-openejb)
StatelessBean bean = ejbJar.addEnterpriseBean(new
StatelessBean("MEJB",MEJBBean.class.getName()));

   can be modified to replace MEJBBean with a dummy class in
geronimo-openejb. I have not tested this...
   If something can be changed in TCK that would be great.

Thanks
Anita

> 
> So I assume the mappedName must always be null and we need to force
> this 
>   mapping for Geronimo?
> 
> Once I modified the name to match the newly enabled MEJB app's id, 
> "mejb/ejb/mgmt/MEJB", then I finally started to see failures that 
> matched what Anita indicated we should see without the correct 
> authorization.
> 
> So what should we do with this openejb change?  We were hoping to 
> release Geronimo 2.0.2 with openejb 3.0-beta-1 which has the old name
> 
> still included.  There are probably other ways around this that would
> 
> only require Geronimo (such as making the new name match the old name
> 
> ... but that's really ugly) or perhaps TCK configuration changes. 
> Any 
> suggestions?
> 
> Joe
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 

Mime
View raw message