Geronimo (at least theoretically) includes anything you have in the
manifest classpath... but IIUC this requires you to be deploying an ear
rather than a standalone ejb module. Are you deploying an ear and does
the ejb jar include the correct manifest classpath entry for your
ejb-client jar? If so, we probably have a bug. Showing the ear
structure and the ejb jar manifest classpath would be helpful.
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:04 PM, nirving-PXlglK8T5uaakBO8gow8eQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Okay, it seems that there are two trains of thought on how to generate
an EJB
jar file. The spec says this (Page 557 of EJB 2.1 Final Release)
"The EJB specification does not specify whether an ejb-jar file should
include
by copy or by reference the classes that are in an ejb-client JAR
file, but
they must be included either one way or the other. If the by-copy
approach is
used, the producer simply includes all the class files in the
ejb-client JAR
file also in the ejb-jar file. If the by-reference approach is used,
the
ejb-jar file producer does not duplicate the content of the ejb-client
JAR file
in the ejb-jar file, but instead uses a Manifest Class-Path entry in
the
ejb-jar file to specify that the ejb-jar file depends on the
ejb-client JAR at
runtime. The use of the Class-Path entries in the JAR files is
explained in the
Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition specification"
It appears that Eclipse WTP (this generated the EJB Jar for me) is
using the
by-reference approach and Geronimo is reliant on the by-copy approach.
So who
is right? Either way it seems that both are correct, so surely
Geronimo needs
to be able to support both methods?
IIUC we think we do :-)
Perhaps I will raise this with Eclipse WTP, as I believe this should
be an
option there to generate code correct for the platform you are building
against, or perhaps the option is there and I am misunderstanding.
There
appears to be a number of problems with their tutorials that has lead
to this
problem arising.
I would think they would want to support both.
Should I sending these problems to the developler list in future?
I think the user list is fine until we are sure we have a problem.
thanks!
david jencks
Quoting Jacek Laskowski <jlaskowski-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
David Jencks wrote:
you need to include all the interfaces for the bean in the ejb jar,
not
just the optional ejb client jar. We actually ignore the client jar
if
you specify it.
By the way, how should we treat the information? Should it influence
the
bean's classpath? I see I'll have to read about it in the EJB spec.
david jencks
Jacek
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
| 