tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manu George" <>
Subject Re: EJB3 Business Interface proxies -- what do you want for features?
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:56:25 GMT
As a user also :) I am able to appreciate the uses of the
all-interfaces-in-one-proxy approach. In case of encountering an
unsupportable bean a deployment failure seems safe to me as it is
better to force the user to address the issue.


On 4/12/07, David Blevins <> wrote:
> The title implies a much wider subject, so feel free to pipe in with
> any requests that may be not be related to the bulk of this email.
> Anyways, there's an interesting facet to EJB 3 business interfaces,
> namely that you can have as many of them as you want.  One that note,
> you can also implement your business interfaces in your bean class
> whereas you could not with the old-style EJB 2.1 interfaces.  But as
> before, you do not have to implement your business interfaces in your
> bean class, you can simply have "matching methods" in the old ejb style.
> So now here comes the question on what you as a user would like to
> see us do (followed by the tricky part which is why we're asking).
> What would you personally want, one proxy that implements all your
> business interfaces or one proxy per business interface?   The spec
> requires us to support the one-proxy-per-interface approach, but the
> all-interfaces-in-one-proxy approach could be supported... sort of....
> The trick is that if you do *not* implement your multiple business
> interfaces and we try to create an all-in-one proxy, you could run
> into a couple different issues and one of them is really really
> nasty.  Here they are, the first one is the worst IMHO as I just ran
> into it and it's no fun :)
> hazzards.html
> The important thing to remember is that these issues could only
> happen if your bean does *not* implement it's business interfaces.
> If it *does* implement it's business interfaces all these issues
> would be sorted out at compile time and you'd never run into them in
> the ejb container.
> So, ... what would you want to see us do?  Should we support both or
> just the spec required approach?  If we were to support it, what
> would you like to see us do in the event that we encounter a bean
> that cannot be supported via the all-in-one proxy approach -- would a
> log message be fine or would you want to see us fail the deployment?
> Thoughts?
> -David

View raw message