Olivier Dumont

Congratulations, Pinal!

Hi Stefan,

Welcome to JavaRanch and this forum!

What you described is confirmed by section 7.8.2 (pgs 89-90) of the EJB specs, meaning that the EJBObject (its method "interceptor") is associated with the bean instance in ejbCreate() already.

But what the client receives from a call to create() on the home stub is *not* the EBjObject itself afterall, just a stub given access to *some* EJBObject.

So I don't think there is a real contradiction there.

Regards,

Olivier.
[ August 25, 2004: Message edited by: Olivier Dumont ]

Hi Koluwa,

The spec is rather unclear as far as what you mention is concerned.
But it beceomes much clearer on the same page (60), point 6.4.2.

Regards,

Olivier.

Hi Koluwa,

Welcome to JavaRanch and this forum!

You're right that, among other programming restrictions, the EJB specs state (bottom of page 494):

An enterprise bean must not use the java.io package to attempt to access files and directories
in the file system.

The file system APIs are not well-suited for business components to access data. Business components should use a resource manager API, such as JDBC, to store data.

Now using other APIs than the java.io package may lead you - indirectly - to access the file system anyway.

But the same specs on page 496 lists the APIs that the container must make available to the enterprise bean instances at runtime. And among them you find ... JAXP 1.0!

So I guess that what you need is achievable without breaking any EJB rule.

Regards,

Olivier.
[ August 25, 2004: Message edited by: Olivier Dumont ]

Hi Robert,

I find your idea of having projected-oriented FAQs (in addition to the current SCJD FAQ) very interesting. But that's a question which should be discussed with the moderators of this forum (Andrew, Phil?) and probably with other moderators as well.

As (AFAIK) our FAQs are organized as Wikis (the pages are editable by anyone), it would need some moderation of course. I don't see Phil on this forum for a few days now, but I guess it's very temporary. In the meantime, what does Andrew think of it?

Regards,

Olivier.

Hi Alfred,

From what you can read on pages 170-171 of the EJB specs, I think that you can conclude that the "beanness" of an entity bean is the same in both setEntityContext() and unsetEntityContext().

Regards,

Olivier.
[ August 24, 2004: Message edited by: Olivier Dumont ]

Mike:
An elegant solution is recognising that there is no primary key, and documenting that fact and that DKE will never be thrown. There is no requirement that an interfaces Exceptions should be thrown.

I think Mike is right. (As Peter and Robert later in the thread BTW)

Searching on this forum, I could find this link which in turn includes a few other links on the same topic.

Hope this helped.

Regards,

Olivier.
[ August 24, 2004: Message edited by: Olivier Dumont ]

Congratulations, Tarun!

Olivier.