Hi Rickard,
I've read the DTD from the 1.1 Spec, it's a real mess. Everything is elements
It seems that they did not want to use attributes for simple things like the
"reentrant" element (for wich the DTD allow one to put anything in it even if
the allowed value should only be "True" or "False").
This will make it more difficult to write GUI for editing the DTD. Also valid
XML DD produce with this DTD may contains error that would be easily avoided by
using attributes instead of elements when it's appropriate.
I've written a DTD for describing DD in the EJB 1.0 world and to easily provide
a common DD for multiple apps servers. Mine is better then theyre's for that
aspect.
Anybody else have comments about the DTD in EJB 1.1??
Rickard �berg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Haven't read through EJB1.1 yet, but lets take a look at the "Changes"
> section.
>
> * "Allowed using java.lang.String as a primary key type."
> This is great! No more pointless primary key string wrappers...
>
> * "Added requirement for hashCode and equals for the primary key class."
> I still wonder why this wasn't in EJB1.0. Must've been an oversight at
> the time. Vendors, hands up: how many relied on this anyway?
>
> * "Deprecated the package javax.ejb.deployment by replacing the
> JavaBeans-based deployment descriptor with an XML-based deployment
> descriptor."
> This is so great. Since the EJB1.0 classes were buggy it was impossible
> to take descriptors made with one server and put them into another. And
> since some servers (you know who you are) even used their own descriptor
> classes it was impossible even if they had been bugfree... XML is def.
> the way to go.
>
> * "Clarified that the enterprise bean class may have superclasses, and
> that the business methods and the
> various container callbacks can be implemented in the enterprise bean
> class, or in any of its super-classes."
> Again, great. Anyone who is serious about this stuff should make common
> superclasses which hold generic code. It is very important for
> maintenance and cod readability.
>
> * "Fixed the example that illustrates the use of handles for session
> objects. Serialized handles are not guar-anteed
> to be deserializable in a different system, and therefore they cannot be
> emailed."
> Hm, what's this? Handles aren't deprecated??
>
> * "Fix an error in the requirement for how a Container must deal with
> inter-EJB invocations when both the
> calling and called bean are in the same JVM. The correct requirement is
> that the RMI semantics must be
> ensured, and therefore the Container must not pass non-remote objects by
> reference."
> I guess the one who will suffer most from this is Weblogic/Tengah who
> relies heavily on intra VM optimizations. There are pros and cons with
> this kind of optimization, but as a whole I agree with the above
> decision.
>
> * "Changed the specification of the return value type of the
> ejbCreate(...) methods for entities with
> container-managed persistence. The previous specification required that
> the ejbCreate methods are
> defined as returning void. The new requirement is that the ejbCreate
> methods be defined as return-ing
> the primary key class type. The implementation of the ejbCreate method
> should return null. This
> change is to allow tools, if they wish, to create an entity bean with
> bean-managed persistence by sub-classing
> an original entity bean with container-managed persistence."
> Aahh.. this is a goodie, and more important than what you might think.
> My server, XS, actually was designed for this at first (i.e. subclassing
> beans to provide CMP). It was only late in my implementation that I
> realized that I needed the above to make it work. This addition will let
> tool vendors make generic CMP managers that can be used with *any* EJB
> container which is, of course, very good.
>
> * "Support for entities has been made mandatory for the Container
> Provider."
> Great, fabulous and superb. :-) What's more to say?
>
> * "Clarified what �proper transaction context� means in the Chapter on
> entities."
> This is good as it has been a FAQ on this list.
>
> That's about it for now. All in all, EJB1.1 seems like a killer. Anyone
> mention MTS and I will laugh loudly 8-)
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Computer Science student@LiTH
> @home: +46 13 177937
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
--
-----
Emmanuel Pirsch
Sun Certified Java Programmer
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org/
---
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful
servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten
the gift."
- Albert Einstein.
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
