So JPA uses EJB if it's available, and returns a remote object reference, obtained through a JNDI lookup, and returns a regular managed object otherwise? The managed object would be a bit different than it is currently, as it should stay managed indefinitely as long as it stays in the current JVM, right?
Yeah, I think that may actually be relatively simple, wouldn't it? Just use the no args initial context, and it should just work, as long as any type of threading is disabled. ----- "C N Davies" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "C N Davies" <[email protected]> > To: "Trenton D. Adams" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:25:39 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain > Subject: RE: equals, hashcode, toString, etc, and field access > > No I a really saying that the remoteable functionality of EJB should > be incorporated into JPA transparently, as part of the enhancement > process in order to make JPA more functional. We don't need to raw > lines between EJB and JPA because at the end of the day we are just > storeing things and a DB and retrieving them again. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trenton D. Adams [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 31 May 2010 3:26 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: equals, hashcode, toString, etc, and field access > > ----- "C N Davies" <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: "C N Davies" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 12:01:23 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada > Mountain > > Subject: RE: equals, hashcode, toString, etc, and field access > > > > I think a remote interface is the way to go, it will allow for a > > multi-vm lazy loading, the structure of which could later be > > determined. One could argue that in this case we haven't gained > much > > over EJB 2.0, but that is my basic point in the first place:) > > So really, this would no longer be part of JPA, but instead EJB, where > EJB takes note that the object being returned is remote-able, with an > interface, and therefore marshals it into a proxy version. Is that > what you're saying?
