Fixed and pushed.

/Tommy

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]>wrote:

> EjbWithoutInterface should be "public static " for consistency
> otherwise looks ok for me
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-03-26 8:42 GMT+01:00 Tommy Tynjä <[email protected]>:
> > When can one expect this patch to be evaluated?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tommy Tynjä
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Tommy Tynjä <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix
> which
> >> the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in
> JIRA.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Tommy Tynjä
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
> >>> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to
> just
> >>> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
> >>>
> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Tommy Tynjä
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
> >>>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
> >>>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
> >>>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code
> >>>> base
> >>>> > somewhat.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations,
> alongside
> >>>> the
> >>>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some
> @Local
> >>>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be
> >>>> the
> >>>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Best regards,
> >>>> > Tommy Tynjä
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to