tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: EJB3 Business Interface proxies -- what do you want for features?
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:36:37 GMT
When I write a bean, I'll most likely have my bean implement all of  
the interfaces, so I would prefer to get an all-in-one-proxy.  I can  
see a case where I decide to add an interface after a library has  
shipped, so I think the "doesn't have to implement rule" is a good  
get out of jail free card :)

So how about a compromise....

proxy = looked-up-interface + all-implemented-interfaces

This way if you implement your interfaces, you get the cool all-in- 
one proxy and you still can use unimplemented interfaces.


On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:19 AM, 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