Awesome, so well formatted, very clean.
I actually was talking to somebody who wanted to "try and move" the
EJB development to openejb and deploy them later on some vendor app
server in production. The blocker is JNDI names where they wanted more
flexibility in JNDI names in that they have existing EJB's which
already are given JNDI names which cannot be created with our JNDI
names format. Maybe some day we could have a facility for defining
our own JNDI names (without using the openejb.jndiname.format) to
facilitate such cases (right now they will have to make changes in all
the tests and the clients they have written for their EJB's -- too big
a change for them because they have several web apps using their
EJB's).
Another feedback was that they really liked the feature of
openejb.jndiname.format . "Developers have to do one less step (of
specifying the JNDI name) while creating the EJB and the JNDI name
format can be standardized throughout all apps" -- was the feedback.
They were also really excited to see that openejb could be embedded
within tomcat. Already planning for tomcat + openejb + eclipse + ANT
kind of an environment. Unfortunately, I could not show them a demo,
cause I did not have an example ready on my laptop and also lack of
time. Dain's docs came at the perfect time as I simply pointed to the
link on our wiki and showed them the steps. Hopefully they will try it
out soon.
I need to work more on the eclipse openejb server plugin. Will be
totally focussing on that whenever I get time.
Great to see people accepting openejb with open arms and are willing
to try the idea of using openejb for development and deploying to
another app server in production. Maybe as they use it more for
development, they get comfortable in using it in production too ;)
On 9/22/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Sep 16, 2007, at 5:36 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Fantastic! You the one, Karan ;) (easier to rhyme now that I
> >>>> know
> >>>> how to pronounce your name :)
> >>> ;)
> >>>
> >>>> That first explanation at the top is too long. If you can think of
> >>>> another way to express the default, go for it.
> >>> Yes, I also want to express it clearly and concisely (wanted to keep
> >>> Dario's feedback in mind too), and what to keep and what to get rid
> >>> of. Thats why it will really help if I can get some feedback on this
> >>> topic once I finish writing it.
> >>
> >> Looking at your work in progress and wanted to give you an FYI..
> >> The "{deploymentId}{interfaceType.annotationName}" is two
> >> variables. The "interfaceType.annotationName" part is just one
> >> variable, i.e. there is no plain "annotationName" variable.
> >
> > Update the doc a little. Added the table of all available jndi
> > name variables and what they are.
> >
> > We're getting closer.
>
> Alright, I fixed up the doc more. I happened to run across a blog
> entry of a guy who had nothing nice to say about OpenEJB in an app
> server comparison simply because of our JNDI names (he was talking
> about Geronimo 1.x/OpenEJB 2.x). I couldn't resist cleaning up the
> doc and posting a link to it :)
>
> -David
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
