EJB and inheritance

[Alex Sharkoff]

Hi all,

I'd greatly appreciate if you could shed some light on the followin question

Question.
SessionBean2(SB2) extends SessionBean1(SB1).
SB2 has public access as it is declared as <ejb-class> in the ejb-jar.xml, SB1 has package access as it is never declared a <ejb-class> and should be only visible to classes that live in the same package.

class SB1 implements SessionBean {
....
}

public class SB2 extends SB1 {
....
}

Will the ejb container throw an error when deploying/executing methods on SB2 as it extends a bean (SB1) that does not have public access?

Thanks a lot in advance to all.

[Valentin Crettaz]

Your example does not conform to what the spec mandates in section 7.10.2, namely that session bean classes must be declared public.

I know this does not answer your question, but everything that does not conform to the spec is not worth investigating anyway

[Vitaliy Geraymovych]

Originally posted by Valentin Crettaz:
Your example does not conform to what the spec mandates in section 7.10.2, namely that session bean classes must be declared public.

I know this does not answer your question, but everything that does not conform to the spec is not worth investigating anyway

In my opinion the example is correct. Here is why.
We are deploying session bean SB2 which is public and implements SessionBean interface indirectly. As long as SB1 class file is accessable to SB2 and they both reside in the same package, container should be fine with it.

Vitaly

[Alex Sharkoff]

Thanks Valentin & Vitaly for your replies.

We will have to agree with the spec and Valentin . I have tested the situation (the one I described in my original question) on JBoss and it throws an error. Made SB1 public - no error.

Thanks a lot again.

[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Alex Sharkoff ]
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Alex Sharkoff ]

[Valentin Crettaz]

Alex,
I'm glad you made it work

Vitaliy,
Unfortunately, when the spec says that the session bean class has to be public, it really means it and expects that container providers enforce the rule

[Vitaliy Geraymovych]

Originally posted by Valentin Crettaz:
Alex,
I'm glad you made it work

Vitaliy,
Unfortunately, when the spec says that the session bean class has to be public, it really means it and expects that container providers enforce the rule

I guess there is a misunderstanding. I just deployed a quick example into RI server without any problems.

Here is the code:

class AdviceBeanSuper implements SessionBean {
... /* all needed stuff here, callbacks and ejbCreate */
}


public class AdviceBean extends AdviceBeanSuper {
/* actual bean*/
}

As long as I am deploying AdviceBean and not AdviceBeanSuper I am OK. I think all spec rules are correct. AdviceBean is public and implements SessionBean interface. HFE page 186 refers to inheritance in EJB.

Alex, you are not trying to deploy SB1 in your exmaple? Right? Only SB2.

Vitaly