The @Resource is a biggy with the JEE 5 within the Servlet Container. There are some deficiencies with the spec such that there was no Class/Factory support for these fundamental annotations, so now supplemental frameworks that have reliance on injection (JSF for one) becomes container specific to gain those capabilities. Ex, the JSF RI silently relies on Glassfish's Injection objects to provide spec behavior.
-- Jacob > >Personally I am a fan of the light-weight approach. Using Tomcat but >adding "enterprise" value at webapp level with Spring and Hibernate has >been a fantastic combination for us. I've not delved into EJB3 much but >I hear it's just POJO CMP stuff which Hibernate does. > >If Tomcat could just provide more support in the >management/instrumentation/clustering and deployment areas I'd be a >happy chappy. > >Allistair. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jess Holle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 22 December 2005 16:08 >To: Tomcat Developers List >Subject: Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1) > >Remy Maucherat wrote: > >> I don't see a big difference with Tomcat, which is also an appserver >> (hopefully, you don't associate EJB <-> appserver, because if you do, >> I'm not talking to you ever again :) ). Marketting is king, though, >> and I understand the desire to look like a rebel and refuse the "big >> fat appserver" in favor of a random set of "independent" components >> which in the end do and are actually the exact same thing. Unless the >> appserver is monolithic, but that's not the current trend (but even if > >> it is, sometimes they are actually small). > >I personally don't associate EJB with app server *but* that's clearly >the marketing trend. To be a certified J2EE app server you have to >support EJBs, all app server marketing rags, etc, are 100% EJB centric, >etc, etc. > >Now that EJB 3 is solidifying I can see a lot broader applicability to >EJBs, but I still don't personally buy the monolithic notion of J2EE (or >JEE) app server. I know JBoss does not have to be deployed this way. >The J2EE certification, marketing, etc, all treats this as a monolithic >stack, though -- which seems unfortunate... > >-- >Jess Holle > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ><FONT SIZE=1 FACE="VERDANA,ARIAL" COLOR=BLUE> >------------------------------------------------------- >QAS Ltd. >Registered in England: No 2582055 >Registered in Australia: No 082 851 474 >------------------------------------------------------- ></FONT> <FONT SIZE=1 FACE="VERDANA,ARIAL" COLOR=BLACK> >Disclaimer: The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and >may be privileged. This email is intended solely for the named recipient only; >if you are not authorised you must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain >this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error >please contact the sender at once so that we may take the appropriate action >and avoid troubling you further. Any views expressed in this message are >those of the individual sender. QAS Limited has the right lawfully to record, >monitor and inspect messages between its employees and any third party. Your >messages shall be subject to such lawful supervision as QAS Limited deems to >be necessary in order to protect its information, its interests and its >reputation. > >Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard Inbound and Outbound emails, QAS >Limited cannot guarantee that attachments are virus free or compatible with >your systems and does not accept any liability in respect of viruses or >computer problems experienced. ></FONT> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
