gopi chillakuru

+ Follow
since Dec 17, 2004
Merit badge: grant badges
For More
Cows and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by gopi chillakuru

sorry for the wrong percentage posting. I got 95% only. As Prometric center printer was not printing, so they said they will give the print report next day. I calculated the percentage based on the percentage I got each section ( 11 sections 100%, 1 section 80%, 1 section 83%, 1 section 87%) as it didn't give me the score on the screen. I got the report today, but the percentage is calculated based on the correct questions (67 questions) and total no. of questions (70 questions).
19 years ago
As I said, I didn't test any program. I went through questions twice at the end of each chapter in HFEJB.

1) don't forget to check Errata for HFEJB
2) refer Specs if you have any doubts
3) keep watching forum
4) don't forget to check explanation for mock exam wrong answers

19 years ago
Thanks to HFEJB authors, Valetin Crettaz for the comprehensive sheets, Java Ranch members, whizlabs and webhoster. Initially I had tough time to read HFEJB, but when I come to 2nd and 3rd chapters, it is very interesting.

I have 0% work experience on EJB and took three weeks to prepare for the exam. I was lazy to write and test a program.
The way I prepared for the exam is
1) completed HFEJB book once
2) go through Valentin Crettaz's sheet
3) completed wihizlabs tests (4 tests)
4) refered specs whenever I have doubt
5) answered
6) answered all the questions at each chapter end in HJEJB
7) skimmed through HJEJB book

Once again thanks to all whoever helped for my preparation.
19 years ago
We can throw application exception from ejbSelect<Method>, I don't know how we can do this, as container implements this method based on ejb-ql in the deployment descriptor and the declaration in the bean class. Can we throw application exception in ejb-ql? Can any one know how we can throw application exception from ejbSelect<Method>.
It doesn't matter whether the bean is session/entity/MDB, the transaction context from Required transaction attribute method to Supports transaction attribute method.

Supports - runs same as calling method transaction context.
I hope this helps
Thank you Malini for the response
can you post your deployment descriptor(ejb-jar.xml) for the portion in enterprise-beans section for remote and local beans.
AdviceBean (remote bean) should have ejb-ref section for local bean and then refer to the local bean in remote bean like
Context ic = new InitialContext();
Object o = ic.lookup("java:comp/env/AdvisorLocal");

I don't have work experience, this is depending on the material I read so far. Please correct me if it is wrong.
Do we need to have ejb-ql in deployment descriptor for findByPrimaryKey method in entitybean home interface? is it implicit to the container?
Answer to this question is A,B,E,F.
According to the spec page:239,240, Select clause can have single valued expression or Object(identifier).

select_clause ::=SELECT [DISTINCT ] {single_valued_path_expression |
OBJECT (identification_variable)}
single_valued_path_expression ::=
{single_valued_navigation | identification_variable}.cmp_field |
single_valued_navigation ::=
identification_variable.[single_valued_cmr_field.]* single_valued_cmr_field

I think "You can't use dot notation to return a Collectiontype CMR field"
In my understanding select m.director from MovieSchema m is correct, as long as m.director is not a collection type.
<cmr-field> is not mandatory. In case of Unidirectional relationship there is no cmr-field element.
According to the spec, page 136,

In the case of a one-to-many relationship, if a collection of entity objects is assigned from a cmr-field of in one instance to a cmr-field of the same relationship type in another instance, the objects in the collection are effectively moved. The contents of the collection of the target instance are replaced with the contents of the collection of the source instance, but the identity of the collection object containing the
instances in the relationship does not change.

In my understanding, the target instance collection is replaced, salesrep1 contains customer2 only (not the customer 1). If it is correct, then option a is correct and what is the another option. Am I going crazy?