"Jung , Dr. Christoph" wrote:
> >Are you saying that you are having multiple EAR applications, and where
> >an EAR can optionally specify it's parent EAR?
>
> well, yes. I should have used more J2EE vocabulary in order to make
> it clear. Whenever referring to "ejb-jar", I really meant "EAR application"
> - maybe confused
> that because we are currently not using JSP,
> but a thick and comfortable VB-GUI.
Alrighty.
> >But multiple EAR's would do the trick, right?
> >But what if sales and stock both references masterdata *jar*'s through
> >classpath manifest? I.e. they are seemingly redundant but in reality use
> >the same jar. Would that be ok?
>
> My argument wrt minimising redundancies would be addressed by this
> technique.
> The only really relevant argument remains ... performance and optimisation
> argument, yes.
Good, then we agree on consequences.
> >If I understand you correctly, all you're saying is that you want an EAR
> >to be able to specify a "parent", and then that parents classloader
> >should be used as parent to the EAR's own classloader. Right?
>
> You made a long talk very very short (I bet I�ll get a nick like
> CG"verbose"J on this list). You were an analyst in your previous life,
> were�nt you ?
Something like that, yes ;-)
> >Nevertheless, yes this is interesting :-)
>
> puuh, interesting enough to extend the J2EEDeployer (undermine, undermine
> ...) ?
Yes, absolutely. It would an easy fix too (and easy fixes are nice,
regardless of their use 8-) ).
Basically, we would need an jboss-application.xml file in addition to
the application.xml one, in which one should be able to specify parent
application. On deployment the parent of classloader of the application
would be the CL of the parent application. Also, any beans in child
application should be able to use parent application EJB names in
ejb-link references. Hey, this is getting really really interesting! So,
the only new rule is that EJB-names in child EAR's may not conflict with
EJB-names of beans in the respective parent application.
Sounds ok?
It is easy to do this, but not trivial. If you're interested in coding
this I'd be willing to give you a few pointers on how to make it as
clean as possible.
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
