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

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

>> Why is one approach a Java Specification while the other one is not?
I think Gavin alluded to this in his talk when he answered a question about the future of hibernate.
Hibernate is and will be a place to try new cutting edge methods.
Specs were never meant to be cutting edge. A spec is and should be something that has been tried and tested.
Hibernate (and other open source projects in general) allows for the new features to be tested.

>> What so magically about the EJB approach that it has it's own [container implementation] specification?
Containers require J2EE certification and J2EE certification = revenue for Sun? ;)
Besides.. rememeber that EJBs also deals with many other facets that Hibernate doesn't have to deal with.
ex. There is no session bean concept in Hibernate.

-Tim

Jeff Boring wrote:

>>EJB was never meant to run outside of a non-ejb container. <
>>    
>>
>
>Hum... but you are mixing specification with implementation. 
>
>
>  
>
>>You can still use Hibernate for that anyways so who really cares? If
>>    
>>
>you chose to use EJB then you've chosen to run in container. If you
>don't want to then it's very simple.. don't use EJBs. <
>
>Why is one approach a Java Specification while the other one is not?
>What so magically about the EJB approach that it has it's own [container
>implementation] specification?
>
>Jeff W. Boring
>Impulse Point
>jb...@im...
> 
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: spr...@li...
>[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf
>Of Tim Chen
>Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 3:56 PM
>To: spr...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] EBJ 3 and J2EE 1.5
>
>
>Jurgen's post quotes:
>"And there hasn't been a single credit to Spring and co in Linda's 
>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 
>were centered around it's Entity Bean solution.
>Particularly CMP.
>
>"Spring's main aim is to make J2EE easier to use and promote good 
>programming practice." *
>It does this by being a POJO/Dependency Injector container. And it does 
>it very well. (Otherwise we wouldnt be using it ;)
>
>"Hibernate is a powerful, ultra-high performance object/relational 
>persistence and query service for Java." **
>Given that, EJB (at least from the entity side) is closer to Hibernate 
>than Spring.
>EJB is NOT a container.
>
>"There's a strong difference in terms of flexibility of deployment: EJB 
>3 can by design never match Spring's capability of adapting to all sorts
>
>of environments, even if adopting the same development model." Again.
>Why should it?! EJB was never meant to run outside of a non-ejb 
>container. You can still use Hibernate for that anyways so who really 
>cares? If you chose to use EJB then you've chosen to run in container. 
>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 
>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?
>
>"It is not good enough to have some EJB 3 EntityManager implementations 
>that can run outside an EJB container. It's still part of the EJB spec, 
>not allowing certification for anything but a complete EJB container 
>implementation (which includes the entire EJB 2 model)."
>I agree with that one. Backwards compatibility with something that was 
>intrinsically broken is just a bad idea.
>
>-Tim
>
>* http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=SpringFramework
>** http://www.hibernate.org/
>
>Jeff Boring wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I agree with most of Juergen's comments about EJB 3
>>(http://blog.hibernate.org/cgi-bin/pollxn.cgi?storypath=/Gavin 
>>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 
>>provide a synopsis of what he said? I'd like to believe that he has 
>>not completely gone over to the dark side :).
>>Politics aside, somebody representing this point of view still needs 
>>to contribute. We all know that most of what we want will currently be
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>vetoed by the big vendors. However, we should still try and fight for 
>>what we can get. Rod is the most qualified from what I know. Rod, can 
>>you let us know what is going on in this area? Is there something some
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>of us could do to support you in this effort?
>>Jeff W. Boring
>>Impulse Point
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
>Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to 
>deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
>http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=dnemail3
>_______________________________________________
>Springframework-developer mailing list
>Spr...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
>Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to 
>deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
>http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3
>_______________________________________________
>Springframework-developer mailing list
>Spr...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>
>  
>