You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> on 2014/03/15 05:57:48 UTC
OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code base
somewhat.
The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside the
already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be the
most preferrable place to insert this validation?
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>.
This issue has been pending for two weeks now since review. Is there any
interest in merging this small patch to prove that we validate the
particular scenario correctly?
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
> Fixed and pushed.
>
> /Tommy
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> EjbWithoutInterface should be "public static " for consistency
>> otherwise looks ok for me
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-26 8:42 GMT+01:00 Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>:
>> > When can one expect this patch to be evaluated?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Tommy Tynjä
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix
>> which
>> >> the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in
>> JIRA.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Tommy Tynjä
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer.
>> I've
>> >>> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough
>> to just
>> >>> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue.
>> See:
>> >>>
>> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>> Tommy Tynjä
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move
>> these
>> >>>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
>> >>>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
>> >>>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code
>> >>>> base
>> >>>> > somewhat.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations,
>> alongside
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some
>> @Local
>> >>>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would
>> be
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Best regards,
>> >>>> > Tommy Tynjä
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>.
Fixed and pushed.
/Tommy
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> EjbWithoutInterface should be "public static " for consistency
> otherwise looks ok for me
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-03-26 8:42 GMT+01:00 Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>:
> > When can one expect this patch to be evaluated?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tommy Tynjä
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
> >
> >> I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix
> which
> >> the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in
> JIRA.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Tommy Tynjä
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
> >>> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to
> just
> >>> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
> >>>
> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Tommy Tynjä
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
> >>>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
> >>>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
> >>>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code
> >>>> base
> >>>> > somewhat.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations,
> alongside
> >>>> the
> >>>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some
> @Local
> >>>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be
> >>>> the
> >>>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Best regards,
> >>>> > Tommy Tynjä
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
EjbWithoutInterface should be "public static " for consistency
otherwise looks ok for me
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-03-26 8:42 GMT+01:00 Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>:
> When can one expect this patch to be evaluated?
>
> Best regards,
> Tommy Tynjä
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
>
>> I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix which
>> the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in JIRA.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tommy Tynjä
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
>>> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to just
>>> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
>>> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Tommy Tynjä
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
>>>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
>>>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
>>>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code
>>>> base
>>>> > somewhat.
>>>> >
>>>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside
>>>> the
>>>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
>>>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be
>>>> the
>>>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best regards,
>>>> > Tommy Tynjä
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>.
When can one expect this patch to be evaluated?
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
> I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix which
> the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in JIRA.
>
> Best regards,
> Tommy Tynjä
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
>
>> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
>> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to just
>> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
>> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tommy Tynjä
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
>>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
>>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
>>>
>>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
>>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code
>>> base
>>> > somewhat.
>>> >
>>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside
>>> the
>>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
>>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be
>>> the
>>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > Tommy Tynjä
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>.
I've sent a pull request containing the test case and a spelling fix which
the ASF GitHub bot successfully picked up and attached to the issue in JIRA.
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se> wrote:
> Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
> created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to just
> add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
> https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
>
> Best regards,
> Tommy Tynjä
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
>> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
>> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
>>
>> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
>> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code base
>> > somewhat.
>> >
>> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside
>> the
>> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
>> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be the
>> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Tommy Tynjä
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Tommy Tynjä <to...@diabol.se>.
Seems like this case is already covered by the AnnotationDeployer. I've
created a test case which demonstrates this. So it should be enough to just
add the test case to the test suite in order to resolve the issue. See:
https://github.com/tommysdk/tomee/commit/ce7ca1abe664f074973f2bf480b9411071af664e
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
> checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
> Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
>
> > I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
> > no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code base
> > somewhat.
> >
> > The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside
> the
> > already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
> > checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be the
> > most preferrable place to insert this validation?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tommy Tynjä
> >
>
Re: OPENEJB-1836 - @Local validation
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Deployer check blocking things nirmally otherwise we should move these
checks in checkxxxx so id go for checkannotations
Le 15 mars 2014 05:58, "Tommy Tynjä" <to...@diabol.se> a écrit :
> I started looking at OPENEJB-1836 (Validation: @Local on bean with
> no-interface should use @LocalBean) and have been browsing the code base
> somewhat.
>
> The check would be rather easy to put into CheckAnnotations, alongside the
> already present @WebService validation. There are however some @Local
> checks in AnnotationDeployer as well, around row 3064. What would be the
> most preferrable place to insert this validation?
>
> Best regards,
> Tommy Tynjä
>