anonymous wrote : So, it seems to me that this potential for conflicts is more a problem with the EJB spec itself than with our implementation.
True enough. Here's a suggestion for Seam, then. Given the built in naming capacity of EJB via Entity/Stateful/Stateless(name=""), what I'd like to see Seam do is use the EJB name if the Seam name is empty: @Name(). In other words, I'd at least like to have the possibility of using one kind of naming convention / definition. I have no problem defining names for all of my Session beans -- I already do it as a defensive practice for my Entity beans. But as a defensive convention, having to define the same name twice for my Seam session beans is going to be annoying. In my opinion, there will be very few situations where I'll want a different Stateful/Stateless name versus the Seam name, and in that case I'd certainly like to defer to the EJB name. For lazy programmers everywhere :), Ryan View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3922611#3922611 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3922611 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list JBoss-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
