Hi,
I don't agree. See the bean provider responsibilities at 6.10 and 9.2.
-- Juha
At 09:13 18.10.2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually, I believe that the EJB 1.1 spec does not require valid RMI/IIOP
>types, because RMI/IIOP is not mandated as the remote procedure call
>mechanism. However, EJB 1.1 implementations that CHOOSE to use RMI/IIOP of
>course have this additional restriction. EJB 2.0 clears this up by
>requiring RMI/IIOP to be used.
>
>-Charles
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Juha Lindfors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "jBoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] Re: RMI/IIOP
>
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The verifier shouldn't barf on the Object[] return type. If it does,
>that's
>> a bug (it's not checking for Serializable, because as Aaron pointed out,
>> this is a runtime requirement, not compile time).
>>
>> There could be a problem with the other return classes though. I'll write
>a
>> test case for the Object[] return type and see what happens.
>>
>> At 16:50 17.10.2000 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Thanks very much for your help, I will look into Intermediate Interfaces
>> >etc. I believe that in general, everything should work fine as I am
>> >doing a port directly from weblogic 5.0 in which we know it works.
>> >
>> >One other question. Does a violation of the RMI/IIOP spec consitute
>> >a violation of the EJB1.1 spec or EJB2.0 or both?
>>
>> Both.
>>
>> -- Juha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
