I'm seeing a lot of conflicting views about that on this list. Is that
supposed to be in the orion-ejb-jar.xml file or the ejb-jar.xml file? I have
not put that in anywhere, but things seem to be working fine (did a few 1:1
dep obj's today). Why are some people saying that is required? Is it
required in the orion-ejb-jar.xml file? If so, that would make a little more
sense as we didn't write our own one yet, just relied on Orion doing that
for us at this stage.
Thanks,
-joel shellman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Drury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Orion-Interest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: EJB 2.0 1-1 mapping entity-depobj problem
>
> I had to put in <cmp-version>2.x</cmp-version> in
> the <entity> area for my ejb2.0 stuff to be
> recognized by Orion. I did NOT need the 2.0 DTD.
>
> -tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joel Shellman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:00 AM
> > To: Orion-Interest
> > Subject: EJB 2.0 1-1 mapping entity-depobj problem
> >
> >
> > I get the following error during deployment:
> >
> > "Method public abstract CP CB.getPrefs() can not be declared abstract"
> >
> > <relationships>
> > <ejb-relation>
> > <ejb-relation-name>C-CP</ejb-relation-name>
> > <ejb-relationship-role>
> > <ejb-relationship-role-name>c-p</ejb-relationship-role-name>
> > <multiplicity>one</multiplicity>
> > <role-source>
> > <ejb-name>C</ejb-name>
> > </role-source>
> > <cmr-field>
> > <cmr-field-name>prefs</cmr-field-name>
> > <cmr-field-type>CP</cmr-field-type>
> > </cmr-field>
> > </ejb-relationship-role>
> > <ejb-relationship-role>
> >
> > <ejb-relationship-role-name>contactprefs-belongs-to-contact</e
> > jb-relationshi
> > p-role-name>
> > <multiplicity>one</multiplicity>
> > <role-source>
> > <dependent-name>CP</dependent-name>
> > </role-source>
> > </ejb-relationship-role>
> > </ejb-relation>
> > </relationships>
> >
> > In the CP bean, I have:
> > public abstract CP getprefs();
> >
> > What's wrong with that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joel Shellman
> >
> >
> >
>
>
