tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: @Webservice and @Remote: Ken Saks response
Date Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:25:05 GMT
Thanks, Laird.  As I mentioned we've been discussing this in the EJB  
3.1 EG for a couple weeks now, but your note to jsr-318- 
comments@jcp.org is still very appreciated and  does help show support  
for clarifying this in the 3.1 spec.

-David

On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Laird Nelson wrote:

> I thought this would be of interest to the list.
>
> Best,
> Laird
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kenneth Saks <Kenneth.Saks@sun.com>
> Date: Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: JSR 318 Comments
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Laird Nelson wrote:
>
> Hello, Ken and others.
>
> There's a bit of a thread going on at the OpenEJB mailing lists  
> concerning
> whether or not it is--or should be--legal to use a single business  
> interface
> as both a @Remote interface and a @WebService SEI.  Apparently the
> specification does not directly address this issue.  Do you folks  
> have a
> clarifying statement you'd be willing to share?  Ideally one that  
> would be
> retroactive to EJB 3.0?  ;-)
>
> Personally what I want to do (portably, reliably) is this (typed off  
> the
> cuff):
>
> @Remote
> @WebService(targetNamespace="...")
> public interface Calculator {
>  public int add(final int one, final int two);
> }
>
> @Stateless
> @WebService(endpointInterface="x.y.Calculator", targetNamespace="...")
> public class CalculatorBean implements Calculator {
>  @Override
>  public final int add(final int one, final int two) {
>    return one + two;
>  }
> }
>
> At the moment, if I recall correctly, Glassfish will allow this, I  
> think,
> and OpenEJB will not.  I haven't tried JBoss, but, of course, the  
> whole
> point is I'm not sure *who's* correct.  I would really, really like  
> it if
> this construct were deemed legal and acceptable.
>
> Hi Laird,
>
> There's nothing in the spec that prohibits this combination of  
> client views
> but it's not a common usage so it's possible there is some  
> difference in
> behavior among vendors.   We'll look to clarify the requirements  
> within EJB
> 3.1.   Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> --ken


Mime
View raw message