Ah Sorry I guess I was not clear. What I was proposing was that the
user can specify openejb.jndiname.format={mappedName}
and then whatever the user gives say
@Stateless(mappedName="David/Dain") will be the jndi name :) of the
bean. i.e. whatever users specify as mappedName will be the name under
which the ejb will be bound in the JNDI Context.
Regards
Manu
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2008, at 10:35 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:26 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:04 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Manu George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I was looking for a way to get the ejb3 beans registered in jndi
>>>>>> under the name a user provides in the mappedName attribute of the
>>>>>> @Stateless ,@Stateful annotations . One way that David told me to give
>>>>>> custom jndi names was to set the jndi-name as deployment-id via the
>>>>>> jndi name configuration property and then give custom deployment ids.
>>>>>> However suppose the user wants a way to set a custom mappedName in the
>>>>>> annotation and that should be the jndi name. On looking at the code I
>>>>>> find that we are not processing for the mappedName. If this is so then
>>>>>> I think that we should be processing the mapped name so that a user
>>>>>> can also specify that as a part of auto created deployment ids like
>>>>>> shown below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eg:
>>>>>> openejb.jndiname.format={deploymentId}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> openejb.deploymentId.format={mappedName}
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we shouldn't just cut out the middle man and let the
>>>>> mappedName be used as a jndiname format.
>>>>
>>>> So I could have an annotation like
>>>> @Stateless(mappedName="{deploymenId}/Whatever")?
>>>
>>> Right, something like that.
>>>
>>> Also possible:
>>>
>>> @Stateless(mappedName="{interfaceClass}")
>>> @Stateless(mappedName="{ejbName}/{interfaceClass}")
>>
>> That's cool. Is this an override for the current settings or in addition
>> to the current settings?
>
> I'd say any xml declaration would override it, though it'd still trump any
> server or module level setting (i.e. less specific settings).
>
> -David
>
>
>
