On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:00 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:16 AM, David Jencks wrote:
For ejbs with the current 3 naming systems it's a bit harder. One
possibility would look something like this:
<jndi>
<global/>
<corba>
<tss-link>foo-tss</tss-link>
</corba>
<openejb/>
<remote-name>foo</remote-name>
<local-name>bar</local-name>
</jndi>
where the global, corba, and openejb elements indicate which
naming system to bind to and the names are supplied with remote-
name and local-name. A remote jndi would ignore the local-name
elements. You could have multiple jndi elements to get different
bindings in different naming systems.
To make this extensible the naming system elements would have to
be in a substitution group and extend an abstract element. The
ones we know about now could all be in the same namespace.
Thoughts?
There was a discussion on this in context of OpenEJB 3. It was
short and no real conclusion was made, but let me see if I can't
dig it up.
Alright, here is that discussion http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
l=openejb-development&m=115500473129558&w=2
Dunno how much relates, but it's worth reading the tail end at least.
In that I had proposed essentially:
<jndi-name interface="some.bean.SomeBeanLocalHomeInterface">some/
jndi/name/SomeBeanLocalHome</jndi-name>
<jndi-name interface="some.bean.SomeBeanRemoteHomeInterface">some/
jndi/name/SomeBeanRemoteHome</jndi-name>
<jndi-name
interface="some.bean.SomeBeanRemoteBusinessInterface">some/jndi/name/
SomeBeanRemoteBizIntfc</jndi-name>
<jndi-name
interface="some.bean.SomeBeanLocalBusinessInterface">some/jndi/name/
SomeBeanLocalBizIntfc</jndi-name>
The only wrapper element would be the bean definition, really don't
need a "<jndi>" wrapper element. Though we could have one.
A partial motivation for 'interface' as an attribute is that in the
ejb3 schema a bean can have unlimited number of business interfaces.
Not sure if this was really the intention -- we'll find out at
certification time I guess.
I thought I had an attribute in there that specified the consuming
protocol ( <jndi-name protocol="foo"), but I guess I did not add
that. I guess I was thinking that you could figure out what to do
with the interface based on the data in ejb-jar (service-endpoint,
remote, local, etc) and in the interface class itself (annotations,
super interface types).
Though it may be good to have an optional "protocol='foo'" attribute
where the lack of it implied "all available and applicable
protocols". Just thinking it would be a bummer to have to supply
jndi names for the corba, openejb remote protocol, and internal
global JNDI trees for a plain remote interface, for example, as all
three names could really be the same -- you'd probably only want the
option to make them different.
Thoughts on that basic premise?
Anyway, lots of things we could do here. I threw up this wiki page
so we could brain storm more:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENEJB/JNDI+Name+Config
Add any options or variations you think may be attractive.
-David
