Why would we need both EJBLocalObject and EJBLocalHome interfaces for a bean in EJB 2.0?

You go to the home and ask it for an instance. Without the home how are you proposing to get an instance?

You go to the home and ask it for an instance. Without the home how are you proposing to get an instance? There are also methods such as remove() which are on the Home not on the instance.

However, unless you are faced with maintaining legacy code you really don't want to do any of this - use EJB 3 and JPA: much much easier.

As I said, I know the role of the Home and Local. But what I meant is that why wouldn't we directly access the Local or Remore EJB. Why would we need another layer Home?

Regarding the remove, in cause of entity bean, both Home and Local EJB object have remove() method. Incase of Local EJB, the remove() does not take parameter because it is known who should be removed. But in case of Home, the remove() take parameters to determine which bean instance should be removed.

And this point confused me why both interfaces? – ipkiss Aug 26 at 23:14 I assume that you accept that we need a creation Interface, that's got to be on the Home surely? By symmetry, it makes sense to me that having a remove there "fits".

Whether it's absolutely "needed" is open to question, but having remove() on the Home gives some efficiency possibilities. – djna Aug 28 at 17:13.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.