Re: [Springframework-developer] EBJ 3 and J2EE 1.5

[Tim C. <tc...@ta...>]

Jurgen's post quotes:
"And there hasn't been a single credit to Spring and co in Linda's=20
talk... (but lots and lots of credits to Hibernate)."
Of course there is no credit to Spring. Why should there be?
The main part of the EJB->Hibernate->EJB 3.0 and EJB 3.0 discussions=20
were centered around it's Entity Bean solution.
Particularly CMP.

"Spring=92s main aim is to make J2EE easier to use and promote good=20
programming practice." *
It does this by being a POJO/Dependency Injector container. And it does=20
it very well. (Otherwise we wouldnt be using it ;)

"Hibernate is a powerful, ultra-high performance object/relational=20
persistence and query service for Java." **
Given that, EJB (at least from the entity side) is closer to Hibernate=20
than Spring.
EJB is NOT a container.

"There's a strong difference in terms of flexibility of deployment: EJB=20
3 can by design never match Spring's capability of adapting to all sorts=20
of environments, even if adopting the same development model."
Again. Why should it?! EJB was never meant to run outside of a non-ejb=20
container. You can still use Hibernate for that anyways so who really=20
cares? If you chose to use EJB then you've chosen to run in container.=20
If you don't want to then it's very simple.. don't use EJBs.

"Why oh why does this have to be part of the EJB spec? Why not doing a=20
separate O/R mapping spec - no matter if within or outsider the JDO=20
scope? There's no technical reason for tying this to an EJB container"
I completely disagree. BMP/CMP/EJB has been getting a bad rap for a=20
while now due to it's performance issues. It was in fact just plain=20
garbage in most cases. So why not fix it? Why create a whole new spec=20
and leave the other one in its state? What good does that do anyone?

"It is not good enough to have some EJB 3 EntityManager implementations=20
that can run outside an EJB container. It's still part of the EJB spec,=20
not allowing certification for anything but a complete EJB container=20
implementation (which includes the entire EJB 2 model)."
I agree with that one. Backwards compatibility with something that was=20
intrinsically broken is just a bad idea.

-Tim

* http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=3DSpringFramework
** http://www.hibernate.org/

Jeff Boring wrote:

> I agree with most of Juergen's comments about EJB 3=20
> (http://blog.hibernate.org/cgi-bin/pollxn.cgi?storypath=3D/Gavin=20
> King/ejb3.html).
> I'd like to see:
> 1) Gavin's response
> 2) Juergen and/or Rod join JSR 244
> Has anyone talked with Gavin (Juergen/Rod?) about this. Can you=20
> provide a synopsis of what he said? I'd like to believe that he has=20
> not completely gone over to the dark side :).
> Politics aside, somebody representing this point of view still needs=20
> to contribute. We all know that most of what we want will currently be=20
> vetoed by the big vendors. However, we should still try and fight for=20
> what we can get. Rod is the most qualified from what I know. Rod, can=20
> you let us know what is going on in this area? Is there something some=20
> of us could do to support you in this effort?
> Jeff W. Boring
> Impulse Point