geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Jndi names, need input (Re: [DISCUSS] G 2.0.2 Release plan)
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:24:47 GMT

On Sep 29, 2007, at 3:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:31 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 8:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> My opinion on what to do depends a bit on whether this name format  
>> can result in name collisions for javaee clients as well as non- 
>> javaee clients.
>
> Javaee client names and the non-javaee client now use different  
> trees, so the jndiformat has no impact on javaee client functionality.

I talked with david a bit on irc and he tells me there is a flag so  
we can set it so if there is a non-javaee jndi name conflict we log  
an error instead of throwing an exception.

I'm happy with a simple default format for non-javaee jndi ejb names  
if collisions result in loud logging rather than exceptions.  I'd  
like it to be possible for people only using javaee to deploy lots of  
copies of the same app without exceptions from name collisions, even  
if this means some random copy of the app wins in the non-javaee  
jndi.  If someone wants to do this AND use non-javaee jndi they  
should read the instructions and figure out a sufficiently complicate  
name format so they avoid collisions.

IIUC the proposed simple name format above that one would be just fine.

thanks
david jencks

>
> -David
>


Mime
View raw message