As a user also :) I am able to appreciate the uses of the all-interfaces-in-one-proxy approach. In case of encountering an unsupportable bean a deployment failure seems safe to me as it is better to force the user to address the issue.
Regards Manu On 4/12/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The title implies a much wider subject, so feel free to pipe in with any requests that may be not be related to the bulk of this email. Anyways, there's an interesting facet to EJB 3 business interfaces, namely that you can have as many of them as you want. One that note, you can also implement your business interfaces in your bean class whereas you could not with the old-style EJB 2.1 interfaces. But as before, you do not have to implement your business interfaces in your bean class, you can simply have "matching methods" in the old ejb style. So now here comes the question on what you as a user would like to see us do (followed by the tricky part which is why we're asking). What would you personally want, one proxy that implements all your business interfaces or one proxy per business interface? The spec requires us to support the one-proxy-per-interface approach, but the all-interfaces-in-one-proxy approach could be supported... sort of.... The trick is that if you do *not* implement your multiple business interfaces and we try to create an all-in-one proxy, you could run into a couple different issues and one of them is really really nasty. Here they are, the first one is the worst IMHO as I just ran into it and it's no fun :) http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/multiple-business-interface- hazzards.html The important thing to remember is that these issues could only happen if your bean does *not* implement it's business interfaces. If it *does* implement it's business interfaces all these issues would be sorted out at compile time and you'd never run into them in the ejb container. So, ... what would you want to see us do? Should we support both or just the spec required approach? If we were to support it, what would you like to see us do in the event that we encounter a bean that cannot be supported via the all-in-one proxy approach -- would a log message be fine or would you want to see us fail the deployment? Thoughts? -David
