Hello ,
I don't understand why option one is not correct here , we know that EJBTransactionRolledbackException is EJBException -which is RuntimeException-
So option one is valid in this situation.
Please explain.
About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
Moderators: Site Manager, fjwalraven
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:44 am
- Contact:
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10389
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
The options are looking for the exact exception class instead of common super classes. We will update the problem statement to make it clear.
Hth,
Paul
Hth,
Paul
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:49 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
The specification is not in "EJB 3.0 core specification", but in "JSR 318: Enterprise JavaBeansTM,Version 3.1EJB Core Contracts and Requirements" .
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10389
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
And how would you write "JSR 318: Enterprise JavaBeansTM,Version 3.1EJB Core Contracts and Requirements" in short? 

-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:49 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
I would not name it 3.0, just because it is 3.1 . Fill the difference.admin wrote:And how would you write "JSR 318: Enterprise JavaBeansTM,Version 3.1EJB Core Contracts and Requirements" in short?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10389
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question enthuware.oce-jpad.v6.2.393 :
You are right. Done.
thank you for your feedback!
thank you for your feedback!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests