sure, sounds good
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Justin Forder
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 10:53 AM
> To: jBoss Developer
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Providing defaults
>
>
> marc fleury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Justin wrote:]
> [snip]
> >
> >> caller
> >> |
> >> | (1)
> >> (2) V (3)
> >> bean metadata<------JAWSPersistenceManager-------->entityBean
> >> |
> >> | (4)
> >> V
> >> JDBC
> >>
> >> You are working in the "bean metadata" space. I see you through
> >> interface (2), which in principle is negotiable, but I am
> regarding that
> >> interface as fixed (frozen) for now.
> >
> >Yes I am working on 2, however nothing is froze AT ALL. Trust me on that.
> >
>
> Understood! Sorry, what I meant was "I am confining my attention to
> JAWSPersistenceManager and regarding its boundaries as fixed" - if I run
> into a brick wall, I might have to expand my scope, but for now I feel
> that there's a lot of mileage in refactoring JAWSPersistenceManager
> while preserving all its interfaces.
>
> Safer in terms of overall jBoss configuration management, too.
>
> Justin
>
> >marc
> >
> >>
> >> Interface (1) is fixed by the overall jBoss architecture.
> >>
> >> Interface (3) is fixed by EJB.
> >
> >....
> >
> >> Interface (4) is fixed by JDBC.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Justin Forder
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Justin Forder
>
>
