Phil Lewis wrote:
> What I would really, really like, is if we could use the same classes for
> both implementations, and just provied additional stuff to deal with the EJB
> where it is used.
See an earlier post of mine (in the archives at
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0004&L=ejb-interest&O=A&P=14939)
on exactly this subject.
> However, because for EJB we need to always deal with the remote interface,
> and for non-ejb we don't want to deal with the remote interface, this makes
> the factory difficult to define and however I try to declare the create
> method, and cast or cajole the return values, I get type mismatches.
The trick I think (if I understand your problem) is to use the remote
interfaces in both cases. Warning: I haven't tried this yet, so I'm
YAPWO (yet another person with an opinion) and nothing else.
> I kind of feel like I'm barking up the wrong tree, but that it's quite a
> worth-while venture (only one set of source to maintain).
Yep; I'm thinking about moving some of our source code in that general
direction as well.
> Is there anyone who would like to work collaboratively to see if we can come
> up with a solution, so we can make a bit of a pattern out of it?
Well, count me in in my copious free time. :-) I'm mainly interested
to see if this is possible; I have no particular religious conviction
either way.
Cheers,
Laird
===========================================================================
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".
