This is biting us again. Here's the old thread for reference:
http://www.nabble.com/-openejb-dev--Concerning-JNDI-lookingup-
EJB3.0-beans-using-its-local-Home-and-Component-interfaces-
tf2056868s2756.html
We've had a similar thread since:
http://www.nabble.com/EJB3-lookup-and-JndiNameStrategy-
tf2754441s2756.html
The summary for those who don't like to read archives is that EJB 3
allows for multiple business interaces (local or remote) and this
creates complications in all sorts of things. We had simply ignored
that this was possible and only supported one business interface.
It'd be really nice if we could support creating a single proxy that
implemented all your business interfaces, so we didn't have to create
individual proxies for each business interface and then have to come
up with unique names for each in JNDI. We will probably have to do
that anyway, but at the very least it would be nice to try and create
a proxy that implements all the proxies and put it in JNDI under a
simpler name. There are some complications for doing this though,
i've tried to summarize them here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/multiple-business-interface-
hazzards.html
I immediately thought, "Well that sucks, now I have to remove the
code I added yesterday for supporting all business interfaces on one
proxy." So I immediately started writing the above test cases and
document on why this was completely impossible to do.
But then I occurred to me that the hazzards of implementing multiple
business interfaces can only occur if the bean itself does *not*
implement it's business interfaces. In all cases where the bean
implements every business interface, which i think is the norm,
having one proxy doing the same is completely fine and I think is
what people would naturally expect.
So the question ultimately comes down to, should we support the idea
of the all-in-one proxy where possible or do we not support it at all
because it isn't possible under all circumstances?
I'd personally be inclined to say it is supported we just need to
check that your bean implements all your business interfaces before
attempting to create an all-in-one proxy, then log either way about
what we could or could not do.
Either way you cut it we're still going to need to support the one-
proxy-per-business-interface approach which means we'll have to have
a new naming convention for what they're called that likely
incorporates the name of the business interface in some way. This is
where the two quoted threads really come into play. We should
probably decide on what we want to do there as we're just about done
with our "first release" to do list we discussed a while back.
Thoughts all around? Throw in your $0.02 if you have 'em. As always
you don't need to be a committer to share your thoughts -- so pipe
up! :)
Going to post this to the user list also (edited down) and see if we
can't get some users to provide us with some preference as well.
-David
