HFEJB Question - Are these answers correct?

[Fernando Matias Valadao]

I have a doubt about the question "12" on page 428.
The book shows letters "b" and "d" to be the correct answers, but I suppose that only letter "b" is correct.
That is, doesn't letter "d" select all the orders, despite of having line itens or not?

Or did I misunderstand something?
Thanks in advance.

Fernando.

[Jeff Walker]

Originally posted by Fernando Matias Valadao:
I have a doubt about the question "12" on page 428.
The book shows letters "b" and "d" to be the correct answers, but I suppose that only letter "b" is correct.
That is, doesn't letter "d" select all the orders, despite of having line itens or not?

Or did I misunderstand something?
Thanks in advance.

Fernando.

I too had trouble with this question. I chose B and was surprised to see D was also considered correct. If an order must have a line item (I could not discern this from the question), then D would be correct.

This also gave me trouble: Q17 in the same chapter, single_valued_path_expression is not defined anywhere in the book.

Many of the questions/answers in the chapters are misprinted or feel very misleading. Such as, Q9 of Chapter 9. It's not possible to answer this one without reading the spec. because the chapter does not mention it. The chapter just tells you that "Never" and Mandatory" cause exceptions, but it is not clear from page 494 that "NotSupported" and "Supports" also throw exceptions. Very misleading.

When you get to Chapter 10, try listing all the application exceptions on one side of a page and the system exceptions on the other side. It's tougher than you think, because they left at least one of them out, AccessLocalException is never mentioned, but is examinable.

How about the timeline on page 355, I swear ejbStore() is called before ejbPassivate(). At least that's what is says at the bottom of page 352!

The whole book is like this. If you only read the book cover to cover and did their practice exam, you'd be lucky to score 85%. You MUST read the spec (all 500+ pages of it) to do really well.

I am surprised nobody has brought out a more precise book (without the paper-wasting cartoons) than HF-EJB. Yet everyone who studies for the exam recommends (no, insists!) that you have to read this book full of misprints and errors.
-jeff

[Bert Bates]

Hey Fernando and Jeff -

What would you think if "n" had been defined as 1 to many?

More generally, we are very concerned about the errata in the book. We are working with the publisher, and plan to fix the errors in the book before the next printing. When we do that we will ratify all of the proposed errata.

Jeff - We're sorry that you're not fond of the HF style... We know that it's not for everybody, and we try to be bery upfront and obvious about the unusual style of the books.

- Bert

[Fernando Matias Valadao]

Bert,

So is this an errata or is it not?
You should have known that I really loved the funny style of HFEJB (not the same point of view as Jeff's impression, I agree). Once again you and Kathy kicked ***.
Thanks.
[ January 18, 2005: Message edited by: Fernando Matias Valadao ]

[Bert Bates]

Hey Fernando -

I'll make you a deal, you answer my question... then I'll answer yours

[Fernando Matias Valadao]

Hi, Bert!
Now I got your point.
You may be angry on me... I started this topic supposing that it was a HFEJB errata, when it was just my fault. I really feel ashamed...
The book is totally right.
Thank you very much.

Fernando

[Bert Bates]

Hey Fernando -

I'm definitely NOT angry!

My question was a sincere one though - if "n" was explicitly defined as 1-many, not 0-many would you like the question better?

Thanks! Looking forward to your feedback!

- Bert

[Fernando Matias Valadao]

Hi, Bert
The relationship is explictly defined there, ok?
See it:

OrderBean (1) <--> LineItemsBean (n)

I shall say again that it was my fault. I really like the question the way it is
Thank you very much.