Thanks, David ! I'll try to fix the resovler code to use jar path instead of moduleId.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks, Shawn! > > On Mar 6, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: > > > In the changes of JIRA[1] made by Jarek, there are many code[2] added in > all module builders to remove the .jar extension from module name. I could > also find similar change[1] in openejb code. For EJB module, because > openejb will need the .jar style module name to resolve the EJB > link(xxx.jar#xxx), the change broke the ejb link cases. > > Looks like we broke the link resolving code when we added the Java EE 6 > <module-name> support. The link resolving code shouldn't be using the > moduleId, rather the path of the archive itself. > > Previously there was not spec defined concept of module-name (moduleId for > us). When we pushed in the spec module-name concept on top of the existing > code, things probably got a little confused. The moduleId vs path logic was > never very clear in the code previously. Probably we need to do some tweaks > in the integration and maybe OpenEJB to get this right. > > > I want to revert the .jar removal code from EjbModuleBuilder to fix > this, but I don't want to broke other things because of the revert. Can > anyone tell me what's the reason to remove the .jar extension ? > > That's the spec defined module name if the <module-name> element isn't set > in the descriptor. > > > -David > > -- Shawn
