aspose file tools*
The moose likes Architect Certification (SCEA/OCMJEA) and the fly likes Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0 Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of The Java EE 7 Tutorial Volume 1 or Volume 2 this week in the Java EE forum
or jQuery UI in Action in the JavaScript forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Architect Certification (SCEA/OCMJEA)
Bookmark "Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0" Watch "Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0" New topic
Author

Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0

Jayakumar Duraisamy
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 31
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

Joined: Jul 18, 2001
Posts: 2712
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

Joined: May 07, 2001
Posts: 31
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

Joined: May 09, 2001
Posts: 38
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.


Ashish Sureka<br /><a href="http://www.ashish-sureka.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.ashish-sureka.com</a>
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
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.
 
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime.
 
subject: Anybody passed Part II and III with EJB 2.0