• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0

 
Jayakumar Duraisamy
Ranch Hand
Posts: 31
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hello,
I am about to complete my assignment. Got a showstopper now. Any body passed Part II and III by following 2.0 specification.
I have read few people's posting here and in yahoo group that it should be 1.1, but they were posted atleast a year back. In the Developer assignment it was clearly mentioned that any production version of J2SE is fine for working on the assignment. Is the same applicable here.
Waiting for ur comments...
Jay
 
Chris Mathews
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2712
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Part II can be designed without comitting to EJB 1.1 or EJB 2.0. I included in my Design Notes that I purposely left the decision of J2EE 1.2 or 1.3 until the implementation phase. I scored a 93% on my assignment.
I don't think the choice between EJB 1.1 or 2.0 is a deciding factor in the assignment. The design is much more than which specification you are using.
 
Jayakumar Duraisamy
Ranch Hand
Posts: 31
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks Chris,
It makes sense to me that implementation phase can decide which specification to follow. But there are some issues like CMP with relationship requires EJB 2.0 spec to be followed. This is particularly imp whether to DAO or not for database independence. How did u handle that. Did u leave that also to implementation team to decide.
Thanks
Jay
 
Mannu Sureka
Ranch Hand
Posts: 38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Jayakumar,
I guess its important to specify whether the design is based on EJB 1.0 or EJB 2.0 because it will effect the class diagram and the design.
- EJB 2.0 specification introduces the possibility of having local home and local interfaces. So in the design if we are making use of local clients that accesses local interface of an EJB then the class diagram will change accordingly because the local home interface must extend EJBLocalHome instead of EJBHome. Similarly, local interface must extend EJBLocalObject instead of EJBObject.
- Moreover the Bean implementation class can be
abstract which has to be reflected in the class diagram.
public abstract class CustomerBean implements EntityBean {
Ashish.
 
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
EJB 2.0 specification introduces the possibility of having local home and local interfaces. So in the design if we are making use of local clients that accesses local interface of an EJB then the class diagram will change accordingly because the local home interface must extend EJBLocalHome instead of EJBHome. Similarly, local interface must extend EJBLocalObject instead of EJBObject.
- Moreover the Bean implementation class can be
abstract which has to be reflected in the class diagram.

Personally I don't think it is necessary to worry about it at that detailed level. If you read some people who got 100% in their part II you will find how simple their class diagram is, and SUN likes that. From my passing experience I also followed the "simple and clear" rule, I didn't specify these local/home interface details.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic