Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> I sort of suspect that for most other types of application
> the bother of actually using distributed transaction isn't
> worth the cost of implementation.
I think of it differently. I recall a world when 'transactions' weren't
a feature of a product; they were simply an approach. You can 'do'
transactions with good error-handling and making sure you know the
states of your object at all times. Writing code that still works (or
rather behaves as desired) when things break is possible and desirable
without stuff like MTS or features of EJB. Even in my ASP days I was
coding to account for roll-back scenarios that arose here and there.
I agree with the suggestion that EJB is just a buzz-word. It's almost a
way to elevate the stature of Java within IT departments. Perhaps to
move Java away from the reputation of "java? oh right..you mean cute web
animations?". It's got Enterprise in the title..must be good!
Based on Jon's suggestion a while back I downloaded the TDK and started
reading. And it describes quite neatly the concept of 'application
server' or 'web application server'. Then I looked at the prices of
comparative commercial products. A no-brainer.
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
