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

[<jue...@we...>]

Tim,
=20
<quote>
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
were centered around it's Entity Bean solution.
Particularly CMP.
</quote>
=20
As Thomas already elaborated, there's also a completely revamped Session =
Bean model that does imitate Spring's development model, just like EJB 3 =
Entity Beans imitate Hibernate respectively HQL. Why give repeated =
explicit credits to Hibernate but not a single one to Spring (or any =
other concrete lightweight container product)?
=20
<quote>
"Why oh why does this have to be part of the EJB spec? Why not doing a
separate O/R mapping spec - no matter if within or outsider the JDO
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
while now due to it's performance issues. It was in fact just plain
garbage in most cases. So why not fix it? Why create a whole new spec
and leave the other one in its state? What good does that do anyone?
</quote>
=20
The old EJB model, in particular EJB 2.x Entity Beans, will still be =
around - live and kicking, without a single deprecation. I don't see the =
point in adding a completely new POJO persistence model to the EJB spec: =
It could simply refer to a separate O/R mapping spec (whether JDO or a =
new one) instead, allowing the latter to address any environment (rather =
than just EJB), and allowing persistence tool vendors to implement it =
(rather than just EJB container vendors).
=20
=20
For the record, I don't really expect to see a consequence regarding the =
former point - I just wanted to publically note it. They will never =
credit Spring in public, at least as long as it is not part of JBoss =
Group ;-)
=20
I have a pretty strong opinion regarding the latter point, though. There =
isn't a single technical reason for a completely new O/R mapping spec as =
part of EJB 3. It seems they just don't want to admit that EJB 1.x/2.x =
Entity Beans have been such a failure, by still calling the new thing =
"Entity Beans" (even if it's something completely new).
=20
Juergen