thanks Yura,
this is not jost about jndi prefix. take a look at this list :
JBOSS :: {jar file name}/{bean name}/{local or remote}
GLASSFISH :: ejb/{bean name}
WEBLOGIC :: {jar file name}_{bean name}_{remote or local interface name}
..
I solved this problem with one xml file for each app server. i most define
all EJB in these xml files.
any way, i don't looking for solution here. I just want to say that Java EE
portability is just in theory.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Yura Tkachenko <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mohammad,
>
> I have one suggestion to fix JNDI naming conventions on different servers.
> In general if in your code you have:
>
> InitialContext iniCtx = new InitialContext(props);
> Context envCtx = (Context) iniCtx.lookup("java:comp/env");
>
> I suggest you to expose constant "java:/comp/env" to some configuration
> file
> (let's call it jndi_jboss.properties). So tomorrow if for some reason you
> need to run your application on new app server and this jndi name will
> look
> like: "comp/env" you just need to create another config file with specific
> settings for this particular application server
> (jndi_xxx_app_server.properties).
> Hopes this solution can address your problem with jndi.
>
> Thanks,
> Yura.
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Mohammad Shamsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > No, it doesn't about Tapestry.
> >
> > its about my problems during migration from lightweight containers to
> the
> > Java EE standard world.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM, adasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Your blog doesn't seem to be about Tapestry.
> > > I believe there are standards, but the standards have boarders which
> may
> > > be
> > > redefined as the standard evolves. What is inside the boarder will be
> > > interoperable, What is outside is left to the implementer.
> > > It is very possible to misunderstand the standard and find that two
> > > seeming
> > > incompatible implementations are both correct and are compatible.
> These
> > > things are complex.
> > > I don't understand your point 4. But I doubt that TopLink is short on
> > > features and capability. Maybe if you explain more fully, but this
> > doesn't
> > > belong to the Tapestry list.
> > > What may belong here is how much Tapestry falls within the boarders of
> > > J2EE
> > > conformance, or does it touch on it at all? I would have thought it
> > > doesn't
> > > and any implementation made with Tapestry will be conforment where
> > > standards
> > > dictate.
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > On 12/04/2008, Mohammad Shamsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Friends,
> > > >
> > > > please take a look at my blog about Java EE and my problems with it.
> > > >
> > > > http://mhshams.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > sincerely yours
> > > > M. H. Shamsi
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > sincerely yours
> > M. H. Shamsi
> >
>
--
sincerely yours
M. H. Shamsi
