I think we should use the fully qualified name of the bean class and
appending the Interface name, like this
com/mycomp/myproject/SuperbadBean/MyHome
or
com/mycomp/myproject/SuperbadBean/SuperbadBeanRemoteHome
...
and the same goes for other interfaces
but I prefere the first pattern, cause users expect to use the name they
just written into code or deployment descriptor .
On 9/13/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently for a bean like this:
>
> @Stateless
> @RemoteHome(MyHome.class)
> @LocalHome(MyLocalHome.class)
> @Local({SomeLocalInterface.class, AnotherLocalInterface.class})
> @Remote({SomeRemoteInterface.class, AnotherRemoteInterface.class})
> public static class SuperbadBean implements SomeLocalInterface,
> AnotherLocalInterface, SomeRemoteInterface, AnotherRemoteInterface {
>
> }
>
> You'd get these JNDI Names:
>
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBean) // for MyHome
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanLocal) // for MyLocalHome
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanBusinessLocal) // for SomeLocalInterface
> and AnotherLocalInterface
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanBusinessRemote) // for
> SomeRemoteInterface and AnotherRemoteInterface
>
> This pattern is completely configurable, but I'm thinking we should
> change the default to use the annotation names (@RemoteHome, @Remote,
> @LocalHome, @Local):
>
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanRemoteHome) // for MyHome
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanLocalHome) // for MyLocalHome
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanLocal) // for SomeLocalInterface and
> AnotherLocalInterface
> INFO - Jndi(name=SuperbadBeanRemote) // for SomeRemoteInterface and
> AnotherRemoteInterface
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
