I would be interested in hearing if vendors think that having both an
ejb-name and an abstract-schema-name is redundant. Both must be unique
within an ejb-jar file, so both uniquely identify a bean deployment. One
difference is, the abstract-schema-names can only be declared by entity
beans. Also the assembler is not allowed to change the
abstract-schema-name, but may change the ejb-name of a bean.
The real clue seems to be a foot note [19] on page 124 of EJB 2.0 PFD2
which states "Use of ejb-names in EJB QL is reserved for future use."
I would like to know what this future use is?
Richard
--
Richard Monson-Haefel
Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly 2000)
Co-Author of Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000)
http://www.jMiddleware.com
===========================================================================
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".
