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

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

>> For the record, I don't really expect to see a consequence regarding t=
he 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 ;-)

hehe are you saying that politics are involved.. no way that would never =
happen ;)

>>The old EJB model, in particular EJB 2.x Entity Beans, will still be ar=
ound - live and kicking, without a single deprecation.

that is true and I don't know why they decided on this other than to say=20
that it is a way to give people upgrading to the new J2EE spec a chance=20
to ease into the transition? /me is always trying to find the good in thi=
ngs

 >> It seems they just don't want to admit that EJB 1.x/2.x Entity Beans=20
have been such a failure, by still calling the new thing "Entity Beans"=20
(even if it's something completely new).

actually I would disagree with this point solely from the pov of someone=20
attending the symposium. many times Gavin had trashed EJB 1.x/2.x and=20
Linda didn't disagree nor did she try to defend it in her own talks. I=20
think they (Sun) have pretty much acknowledged their failure.

-Tim

j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT] wrote:

>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 expli=
cit credits to Hibernate but not a single one to Spring (or any other con=
crete 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 aro=
und - live and kicking, without a single deprecation. I don't see the poi=
nt 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 o=
ne) 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 cred=
it 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 E=
ntity Beans have been such a failure, by still calling the new thing "Ent=
ity Beans" (even if it's something completely new).
>=20
>Juergen
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software
>Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to=20
>deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO.
>http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=3Ddnemail3
>_______________________________________________
>Springframework-developer mailing list
>Spr...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>
> =20
>