> No, I was probably stoned when doing it
Yes, I tried that and it doesn't work. Visions are good and transmissions are clear
but the actual work needs to be done clear.
Visions != work
But you do need that to make sense of the architecture
marcf
_
On 14 Dec, marc fleury wrote:
>
>
> but from the reading that I make in the container of the use of "beanMapping" I find
>it silly.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong but since the use of bean mapping in EJB standard is to
>cover interface->bean mapping (remember the bean doesn't implement the inte
but from the reading that I make in the container of the use of "beanMapping" I find
it silly.
Correct me if I am wrong but since the use of bean mapping in EJB standard is to cover
interface->bean mapping (remember the bean doesn't implement the interface) then it is
useless in the case of
