You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2006/07/24 22:35:42 UTC
POJO Style-beans
Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
-David
Re: Component interface iTests (was: Re: POJO Style-beans)
Posted by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave...
Would you advice me to do something till you send me the detailed steps of
the iTests ???
On 8/17/06, Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi DBlevins...
>
> Sounds good as a simple start step towards the big ones :)
>
>
>
> On 8/17/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mohammed,
> >
> > On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> > > At this point we could do all the tests that relate to testing a
> > > POJO Stateless or Stateful bean with Home/Remote and related
> > > interfaces. The deployment/runtime support for those should be
> > > done. So these should be ripe for the picking.
> > >
> > > [OPENEJB-145] iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests
> > > [OPENEJB-147] iTest: StatelessHomeIntfcTests
> > > [OPENEJB-148] iTest: StatelessEjbHomeTests
> > > [OPENEJB-149] iTest: StatelessEjbObjectTests
> > > [OPENEJB-152] iTest: StatelessRemoteIntfcTests
> > > [OPENEJB-154] iTest: StatelessHomeHandleTests
> > > [OPENEJB-155] iTest: StatelessHandleTests
> > > [OPENEJB-156] iTest: StatelessEjbMetaDataTests
> > > [OPENEJB-159] iTest: StatelessBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> > > [OPENEJB-162] iTest: StatelessBeanCallbackTests
> > > [OPENEJB-163] iTest: StatelessBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> > > [OPENEJB-164] iTest: StatelessBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> > > [OPENEJB-165] iTest: StatelessBeanTxTests
> > > [OPENEJB-166] iTest: StatelessContainerTxTests
> > > [OPENEJB-169] iTest: StatelessRemoteRmiIiopTests
> > >
> > > [OPENEJB-171] iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests
> > > [OPENEJB-173] iTest: StatefulHomeIntfcTests
> > > [OPENEJB-174] iTest: StatefulEjbHomeTests
> > > [OPENEJB-175] iTest: StatefulEjbObjectTests
> > > [OPENEJB-178] iTest: StatefulRemoteIntfcTests
> > > [OPENEJB-180] iTest: StatefulHomeHandleTests
> > > [OPENEJB-181] iTest: StatefulHandleTests
> > > [OPENEJB-182] iTest: StatefulEjbMetaDataTests
> > > [OPENEJB-185] iTest: StatefulBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> > > [OPENEJB-188] iTest: StatefulBeanCallbackTests
> > > [OPENEJB-189] iTest: StatefulBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> > > [OPENEJB-190] iTest: StatefulBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> > > [OPENEJB-191] iTest: StatefulBeanTxTests
> > > [OPENEJB-192] iTest: StatefulContainerTxTests
> > > [OPENEJB-195] iTest: StatefulRemoteRmiIiopTests
> > >
> > > We can do whatever, these tests or others or no tests at all and
> > > work on other stuff. Up to you guys.
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> > > [...] the iTests needed for testing EJB3.0 beans with Home and
> > > Component
> > > interfaces, I would like to join this task and I would like to know
> > > your
> > > ideas about how I can help in this.
> >
> > I'd say that what we should do is work together on a couple of these
> > and get the initiative jump started that way. The Stateless and
> > Stateful tests are identical in function and form, they just use
> > different beans. So maybe a smart way to start is that I could do
> > say "OPENEJB-145 iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests" and detail the
> > steps and you could do the Stateful equivalent of that test,
> > "OPENEJB-171 iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests"
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Component interface iTests (was: Re: POJO Style-beans)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> On 8/17/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd say that what we should do is work together on a couple of these
>> and get the initiative jump started that way. The Stateless and
>> Stateful tests are identical in function and form, they just use
>> different beans. So maybe a smart way to start is that I could do
>> say "OPENEJB-145 iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests" and detail the
>> steps and you could do the Stateful equivalent of that test,
>> "OPENEJB-171 iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests"
>>
>
> Sounds good as a simple start step towards the big ones :)
>
I did OPENEJB-145 all in one commit so that you could examine it and
use it as a template for doing OPENEJB-171. Here is that commit:
http://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/openejb/?cs=2864
Here are the basic steps i did:
- Copy http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
openejb-itests/src/main/java/org/openejb/test/stateless/
StatelessJndiTests.java
- Name the new test org/openejb/test/stateless/
StatelessPojoRemoteJndiTests.java
- Edit the JNDI name to "client/tests/stateless/
BasicStatelessPojoHome"
- Edit http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
openejb-itests/src/main/java/org/openejb/test/stateless/
StatelessTestSuite.java
- Add a new entry for "suite.addTest(new
StatelessPojoRemoteJndiTests());"
- Copy http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
openejb-itests/src/main/java/org/openejb/test/stateless/
BasicStatelessBean.java
- Name the new class
org.openejb.test.stateless.BasicStatelessPojoBean
- Delete the part "implements javax.ejb.SessionBean ..."
- Delete any methods that start with "ejb"
- Edit http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
openejb-itests/src/main/resources/META-INF/ejb-jar.xml
- Copy the session bean called "BasicStatelessBean" to a new
session bean entry called "BasicStatelessPojoBean"
- Edit the "ejb-class" value of "BasicStatelessPojoBean" to be
org.openejb.test.stateless.BasicStatelessPojoBean
- Edit http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
openejb-itests/src/main/resources/META-INF/openejb-jar.xml
- Copy the deployment entry called "BasicStatelessBean" to a new
entry called "BasicStatelessPojoBean"
- Edit the "deployment-id" attribute to "client/tests/stateless/
BasicStatelessPojoHome"
- Edit http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
container/openejb-core/src/main/resources/META-INF/org.openejb/
spring.xml
- Copy the element "<entry key="client/tests/stateless/
BasicStatelessHome">"
- Edit the "key" attribute to "client/tests/stateless/
BasicStatelessPojoHome"
- Edit the "id" attribute to "client/tests/stateless/
BasicStatelessPojoHome" of "o:statelessDeployment"
- Edit the "beanClass" attribute to
"org.openejb.test.stateless.BasicStatelessPojoBean"
It'll be the same steps for you, but with "Stateful" instead of
"Stateless" in all the class and package names, etc. Most the other
tests will follow a similar "copy/modify" rhythm, so this will be a
good exercise. It'll be a good experience to run through it and see
the test compile and pass.
If you run into any troubles, definitely hit the list up for info.
Thanks,
David
Re: Component interface iTests (was: Re: POJO Style-beans)
Posted by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi DBlevins...
Sounds good as a simple start step towards the big ones :)
On 8/17/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Hi Mohammed,
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> > At this point we could do all the tests that relate to testing a
> > POJO Stateless or Stateful bean with Home/Remote and related
> > interfaces. The deployment/runtime support for those should be
> > done. So these should be ripe for the picking.
> >
> > [OPENEJB-145] iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests
> > [OPENEJB-147] iTest: StatelessHomeIntfcTests
> > [OPENEJB-148] iTest: StatelessEjbHomeTests
> > [OPENEJB-149] iTest: StatelessEjbObjectTests
> > [OPENEJB-152] iTest: StatelessRemoteIntfcTests
> > [OPENEJB-154] iTest: StatelessHomeHandleTests
> > [OPENEJB-155] iTest: StatelessHandleTests
> > [OPENEJB-156] iTest: StatelessEjbMetaDataTests
> > [OPENEJB-159] iTest: StatelessBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> > [OPENEJB-162] iTest: StatelessBeanCallbackTests
> > [OPENEJB-163] iTest: StatelessBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> > [OPENEJB-164] iTest: StatelessBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> > [OPENEJB-165] iTest: StatelessBeanTxTests
> > [OPENEJB-166] iTest: StatelessContainerTxTests
> > [OPENEJB-169] iTest: StatelessRemoteRmiIiopTests
> >
> > [OPENEJB-171] iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests
> > [OPENEJB-173] iTest: StatefulHomeIntfcTests
> > [OPENEJB-174] iTest: StatefulEjbHomeTests
> > [OPENEJB-175] iTest: StatefulEjbObjectTests
> > [OPENEJB-178] iTest: StatefulRemoteIntfcTests
> > [OPENEJB-180] iTest: StatefulHomeHandleTests
> > [OPENEJB-181] iTest: StatefulHandleTests
> > [OPENEJB-182] iTest: StatefulEjbMetaDataTests
> > [OPENEJB-185] iTest: StatefulBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> > [OPENEJB-188] iTest: StatefulBeanCallbackTests
> > [OPENEJB-189] iTest: StatefulBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> > [OPENEJB-190] iTest: StatefulBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> > [OPENEJB-191] iTest: StatefulBeanTxTests
> > [OPENEJB-192] iTest: StatefulContainerTxTests
> > [OPENEJB-195] iTest: StatefulRemoteRmiIiopTests
> >
> > We can do whatever, these tests or others or no tests at all and
> > work on other stuff. Up to you guys.
>
> On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> > [...] the iTests needed for testing EJB3.0 beans with Home and
> > Component
> > interfaces, I would like to join this task and I would like to know
> > your
> > ideas about how I can help in this.
>
> I'd say that what we should do is work together on a couple of these
> and get the initiative jump started that way. The Stateless and
> Stateful tests are identical in function and form, they just use
> different beans. So maybe a smart way to start is that I could do
> say "OPENEJB-145 iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests" and detail the
> steps and you could do the Stateful equivalent of that test,
> "OPENEJB-171 iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests"
>
> How does that sound?
>
> -David
>
>
>
Component interface iTests (was: Re: POJO Style-beans)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Hi Mohammed,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> At this point we could do all the tests that relate to testing a
> POJO Stateless or Stateful bean with Home/Remote and related
> interfaces. The deployment/runtime support for those should be
> done. So these should be ripe for the picking.
>
> [OPENEJB-145] iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests
> [OPENEJB-147] iTest: StatelessHomeIntfcTests
> [OPENEJB-148] iTest: StatelessEjbHomeTests
> [OPENEJB-149] iTest: StatelessEjbObjectTests
> [OPENEJB-152] iTest: StatelessRemoteIntfcTests
> [OPENEJB-154] iTest: StatelessHomeHandleTests
> [OPENEJB-155] iTest: StatelessHandleTests
> [OPENEJB-156] iTest: StatelessEjbMetaDataTests
> [OPENEJB-159] iTest: StatelessBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> [OPENEJB-162] iTest: StatelessBeanCallbackTests
> [OPENEJB-163] iTest: StatelessBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> [OPENEJB-164] iTest: StatelessBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> [OPENEJB-165] iTest: StatelessBeanTxTests
> [OPENEJB-166] iTest: StatelessContainerTxTests
> [OPENEJB-169] iTest: StatelessRemoteRmiIiopTests
>
> [OPENEJB-171] iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests
> [OPENEJB-173] iTest: StatefulHomeIntfcTests
> [OPENEJB-174] iTest: StatefulEjbHomeTests
> [OPENEJB-175] iTest: StatefulEjbObjectTests
> [OPENEJB-178] iTest: StatefulRemoteIntfcTests
> [OPENEJB-180] iTest: StatefulHomeHandleTests
> [OPENEJB-181] iTest: StatefulHandleTests
> [OPENEJB-182] iTest: StatefulEjbMetaDataTests
> [OPENEJB-185] iTest: StatefulBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
> [OPENEJB-188] iTest: StatefulBeanCallbackTests
> [OPENEJB-189] iTest: StatefulBeanAllowedOperationsTests
> [OPENEJB-190] iTest: StatefulBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
> [OPENEJB-191] iTest: StatefulBeanTxTests
> [OPENEJB-192] iTest: StatefulContainerTxTests
> [OPENEJB-195] iTest: StatefulRemoteRmiIiopTests
>
> We can do whatever, these tests or others or no tests at all and
> work on other stuff. Up to you guys.
On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> [...] the iTests needed for testing EJB3.0 beans with Home and
> Component
> interfaces, I would like to join this task and I would like to know
> your
> ideas about how I can help in this.
I'd say that what we should do is work together on a couple of these
and get the initiative jump started that way. The Stateless and
Stateful tests are identical in function and form, they just use
different beans. So maybe a smart way to start is that I could do
say "OPENEJB-145 iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests" and detail the
steps and you could do the Stateful equivalent of that test,
"OPENEJB-171 iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests"
How does that sound?
-David
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 14, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi David...
>
> On 8/15/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> We do have deployment and runtime support for POJO
>> Stateless and Stateful beans that have component interfaces (home/
>> remote). It just uses the deployment descriptor instead of
>> Annotations.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts on doing OPENEJB-145 as I detail in this
>> email? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openejb-
>> development&m=115481372914101&w=2
>
>
> I could deploy an EJB that has a local Home and local Components
> interfaces
> as OPENEJB-146 requires, but we need to make some changes in the
> deployment
> process more specifically in the validation step so we can deploy
> an EJB
> with a business interface only, I think the current implementation
> requires
> an EJB to have local\remote Home and Component interfaces. So we
> need to
> open JIRA(s) to address this feature and implement it so we can have a
> running iTests for the new features of EJB3.0 .
Right, completing OPENEJB-146 requires Business Interface support
(OPENEJB-90). Thanks for the note on validation of business
interfaces, I've added another sub-task to OPENEJB-90. So that gives
us:
[OPENEJB-90] Business Interface support
1 [OPENEJB-91] Remote business interfaces via EJBd Server
2 [OPENEJB-92] Remote business interfaces via IntraVM Server
3 [OPENEJB-93] Local business interfaces via IntraVM Server
4 [OPENEJB-94] SessionContext.getBusinessObject(interface)
5 [OPENEJB-95] JNDI ENC Business Interface references
6 [OPENEJB-96] Global JNDI Business Interface references
7 [OPENEJB-97] SessionContext.getInvokedBusinessInterface
8 [OPENEJB-254] Validation of Business Interfaces
At this point we could do all the tests that relate to testing a POJO
Stateless or Stateful bean with Home/Remote and related interfaces.
The deployment/runtime support for those should be done. So these
should be ripe for the picking.
[OPENEJB-145] iTest: StatelessRemoteJndiTests
[OPENEJB-147] iTest: StatelessHomeIntfcTests
[OPENEJB-148] iTest: StatelessEjbHomeTests
[OPENEJB-149] iTest: StatelessEjbObjectTests
[OPENEJB-152] iTest: StatelessRemoteIntfcTests
[OPENEJB-154] iTest: StatelessHomeHandleTests
[OPENEJB-155] iTest: StatelessHandleTests
[OPENEJB-156] iTest: StatelessEjbMetaDataTests
[OPENEJB-159] iTest: StatelessBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
[OPENEJB-162] iTest: StatelessBeanCallbackTests
[OPENEJB-163] iTest: StatelessBeanAllowedOperationsTests
[OPENEJB-164] iTest: StatelessBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
[OPENEJB-165] iTest: StatelessBeanTxTests
[OPENEJB-166] iTest: StatelessContainerTxTests
[OPENEJB-169] iTest: StatelessRemoteRmiIiopTests
[OPENEJB-171] iTest: StatefulRemoteJndiTests
[OPENEJB-173] iTest: StatefulHomeIntfcTests
[OPENEJB-174] iTest: StatefulEjbHomeTests
[OPENEJB-175] iTest: StatefulEjbObjectTests
[OPENEJB-178] iTest: StatefulRemoteIntfcTests
[OPENEJB-180] iTest: StatefulHomeHandleTests
[OPENEJB-181] iTest: StatefulHandleTests
[OPENEJB-182] iTest: StatefulEjbMetaDataTests
[OPENEJB-185] iTest: StatefulBeanJndiEncTests (most of it)
[OPENEJB-188] iTest: StatefulBeanCallbackTests
[OPENEJB-189] iTest: StatefulBeanAllowedOperationsTests
[OPENEJB-190] iTest: StatefulBeanBMTAllowedOperationsTests
[OPENEJB-191] iTest: StatefulBeanTxTests
[OPENEJB-192] iTest: StatefulContainerTxTests
[OPENEJB-195] iTest: StatefulRemoteRmiIiopTests
We can do whatever, these tests or others or no tests at all and work
on other stuff. Up to you guys.
What's the game plan?
-David
> -David
>>
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Paulo
>> >
>> > On 8/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi DBlevins...
>> >> >
>> >> > Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl
>> >> of the
>> >> > missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using
>> annotations,
>> >> > this
>> >> > will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did
>> >> > the impl of
>> >> > the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the
>> impl of
>> >> > the iTests
>> >> > ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
>> >>
>> >> I have to apologize, I didn't follow that sentence too well.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you can explain your game-plan in terms of JIRA items you'd
>> >> like to work on.
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks and best regards...
>> >> > Mohammad Nour El-Din
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
>> >> >> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/
>> >> OPENEJB-76
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It
>> longer
>> >> >> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of
>> SessionBean.
>> >> >> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt
>> >> it to
>> >> >> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant
>> >> overhead to
>> >> >> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see
>> your
>> >> >> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class
>> name.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What
>> we have
>> >> >> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a
>> stateless or
>> >> >> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to
>> import any
>> >> >> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still
>> >> don't have
>> >> >> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct,
>> @PreDestroy,
>> >> >> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full
>> >> dependency
>> >> >> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business
>> remote
>> >> >> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -David
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paulo Lopes
>> > www.scratchydreams.com
>> >
>>
>>
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi David...
On 8/15/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Paulo Lopes wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > What Mohammed wanted to say (i think) is that we should try to the the
> > deployment process for openejb 3 working so the real tests could
> > start. In other words we'd need
> > to have the annotations parser working and some bootstrapping of the
> > server to fully
> > test the new EJB 3.0 spec features.
>
> Ah, alright. We do have deployment and runtime support for POJO
> Stateless and Stateful beans that have component interfaces (home/
> remote). It just uses the deployment descriptor instead of Annotations.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts on doing OPENEJB-145 as I detail in this
> email? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openejb-
> development&m=115481372914101&w=2
I could deploy an EJB that has a local Home and local Components interfaces
as OPENEJB-146 requires, but we need to make some changes in the deployment
process more specifically in the validation step so we can deploy an EJB
with a business interface only, I think the current implementation requires
an EJB to have local\remote Home and Component interfaces. So we need to
open JIRA(s) to address this feature and implement it so we can have a
running iTests for the new features of EJB3.0 .
-David
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Paulo
> >
> > On 8/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi DBlevins...
> >> >
> >> > Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl
> >> of the
> >> > missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using annotations,
> >> > this
> >> > will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did
> >> > the impl of
> >> > the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the impl of
> >> > the iTests
> >> > ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
> >>
> >> I have to apologize, I didn't follow that sentence too well.
> >>
> >> Maybe you can explain your game-plan in terms of JIRA items you'd
> >> like to work on.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> > Thanks and best regards...
> >> > Mohammad Nour El-Din
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
> >> >> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/
> >> OPENEJB-76
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
> >> >> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
> >> >> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt
> >> it to
> >> >> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant
> >> overhead to
> >> >> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
> >> >> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
> >> >>
> >> >> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
> >> >> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
> >> >> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
> >> >> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still
> >> don't have
> >> >> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
> >> >> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full
> >> dependency
> >> >> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
> >> >> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
> >> >>
> >> >> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> -David
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paulo Lopes
> > www.scratchydreams.com
> >
>
>
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 14, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Paulo Lopes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What Mohammed wanted to say (i think) is that we should try to the the
> deployment process for openejb 3 working so the real tests could
> start. In other words we'd need
> to have the annotations parser working and some bootstrapping of the
> server to fully
> test the new EJB 3.0 spec features.
Ah, alright. We do have deployment and runtime support for POJO
Stateless and Stateful beans that have component interfaces (home/
remote). It just uses the deployment descriptor instead of Annotations.
Anyone have any thoughts on doing OPENEJB-145 as I detail in this
email? http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openejb-
development&m=115481372914101&w=2
-David
> Regards,
> Paulo
>
> On 8/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
>>
>> > Hi DBlevins...
>> >
>> > Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl
>> of the
>> > missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using annotations,
>> > this
>> > will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did
>> > the impl of
>> > the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the impl of
>> > the iTests
>> > ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
>>
>> I have to apologize, I didn't follow that sentence too well.
>>
>> Maybe you can explain your game-plan in terms of JIRA items you'd
>> like to work on.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> > Thanks and best regards...
>> > Mohammad Nour El-Din
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
>> >> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/
>> OPENEJB-76
>> >> >
>> >> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
>> >> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
>> >> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt
>> it to
>> >> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant
>> overhead to
>> >> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
>> >> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
>> >>
>> >> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
>> >> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
>> >> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
>> >> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
>> >>
>> >> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still
>> don't have
>> >> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
>> >> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full
>> dependency
>> >> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
>> >> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
>> >>
>> >> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Lopes
> www.scratchydreams.com
>
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by Paulo Lopes <pm...@scratchydreams.com>.
Hi,
What Mohammed wanted to say (i think) is that we should try to the the
deployment process for openejb 3 working so the real tests could
start. In other words we'd need
to have the annotations parser working and some bootstrapping of the
server to fully
test the new EJB 3.0 spec features.
Regards,
Paulo
On 8/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
>
> > Hi DBlevins...
> >
> > Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl of the
> > missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using annotations,
> > this
> > will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did
> > the impl of
> > the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the impl of
> > the iTests
> > ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
>
> I have to apologize, I didn't follow that sentence too well.
>
> Maybe you can explain your game-plan in terms of JIRA items you'd
> like to work on.
>
> -David
>
>
> > Thanks and best regards...
> > Mohammad Nour El-Din
> >
> >
> > On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
> >> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
> >> >
> >> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
> >> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
> >> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt it to
> >> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant overhead to
> >> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
> >> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
> >>
> >> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
> >> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
> >> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
> >> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
> >>
> >> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still don't have
> >> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
> >> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full dependency
> >> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
> >> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
> >>
> >> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
>
>
--
Paulo Lopes
www.scratchydreams.com
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Aug 14, 2006, at 6:49 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi DBlevins...
>
> Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl of the
> missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using annotations,
> this
> will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did
> the impl of
> the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the impl of
> the iTests
> ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
I have to apologize, I didn't follow that sentence too well.
Maybe you can explain your game-plan in terms of JIRA items you'd
like to work on.
-David
> Thanks and best regards...
> Mohammad Nour El-Din
>
>
> On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >
>> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
>> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
>> >
>> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
>> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
>> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt it to
>> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant overhead to
>> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
>> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
>>
>> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
>> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
>> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
>> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
>>
>> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still don't have
>> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
>> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full dependency
>> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
>> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
>>
>> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
>>
>> -David
>>
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi DBlevins...
Concerning the iTests, I and Paulo suggest that we own the impl of the
missing of EJB3.0 deployment time features, like using annotations, this
will help us deploying our test beans and in the same time u did the impl of
the run time so we can test it too, this will be with the impl of the iTests
ofcaurse, so what do u think ?
Thanks and best regards...
Mohammad Nour El-Din
On 8/4/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
> >> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
> >
> > Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
> > assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
> > Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt it to
> > be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant overhead to
> > startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
> > bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
>
> Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
> now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
> stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
> javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
>
> The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still don't have
> support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
> @PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full dependency
> injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
> interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
>
> Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
>
> -David
>
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:24 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
>> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
>
> Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
> assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
> Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt it to
> be a SessionBean class, but that would add significant overhead to
> startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your
> bean classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
Got something in for the stateful container now too. What we have
now is the ability to support a pojo lifecycle on a stateless or
stateful session bean. The bean class doesn't have to import any
javax.ejb classes, interfaces or annotations at all.
The bean must be configured via the ejb-jar.xml. We still don't have
support for the related annotations @PostConstruct, @PreDestroy,
@PrePassivate, and @PostActivate (OPENEJB-216). Nor full dependency
injection (OPENEJB-98), nor for business local or business remote
interfaces quite yet (OPENEJB-90).
Getting the business interfaces to work will be the next thing.
-David
Re: POJO Style-beans
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 24, 2006, at 1:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Going to take a whack at support for EJB 3 POJO Style beans.
> Thinking to start here http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-76
Got some trivial support in the stateless container. It longer
assumes that all bean instances are subclasses of SessionBean.
Considered dynamically subclassing each bean class to adapt it to be
a SessionBean class, but that would add significant overhead to
startup. The other downer would be you'd never get to see your bean
classname in the stacktrace, only the generated class name.
Still poking at it.
-David
>
> -David
>