> Personally, I like it a great deal. It is a great deal better
> than the original PFD.
Here Here
I also think that PFD2 is a great improvement.
The Local/Remote solution is more elegant & better aligned with current
thinking about enterprise architecture (my current thinking anyway ;-). In
our current architecture we have Homes that are explicitly remote and hand
out Remote entities & Factories that are explicitly local and hand out local
entities; we have found this to be very effective.
It allows for a very modular & flexible approach to the old 'Granularity'
argument (personally I still like course grained facade/service 'remote'
beans on top of fine grained 'local' beans).
It appears to allow for much better server/container/persistence-manager
side optimization & caching.
It doesn't introduce 'yet another' concept for people to get their heads
around (i.e. dependent objects).
I do have a question about the design of Interfaces such that they can
easily be changed between local & remote, but I'll post that in a separate
thread
Cheers,
Matthew
---
j. matthew pryor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
versata, inc <www.versata.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Evan Ireland
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EJB 2.0 Proposed Final Draft 2
>
>
> Cedric Beust wrote:
> >
> > >From: Jonathan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >BEA attempting to influence the specification because it makes
> it easier
> > on
> > >them? Almost certainly. Consider this: if the specification changed
> > >dramatically right up to the final release, then BEA would be forced to
> > >significantly modify their beta implementation, and developer
> code might
> > >break. So, it is most certainly in BEA's best interest to
> influence the
> > >specification.
> >
> > If I understand you right, the fact that PFD2 introduces so many radical
> > changes compared to PFD1 proves that BEA obviously has zero
> influence on the
> > specification.
> >
> > Although you probably meant to say the opposite :-)
>
> I'll leave that for Jonathan to comment.
>
> How about we all move on and discuss the merits (or otherwise) of PFD 2!
>
> Personally, I like it a great deal. It is a great deal better
> than the original
> PFD. The key benefit is legitimizing pass-by-value so that it is
> the client
> programmer's responsibility to choose the argument-passing
> semantics they wish
> to use. This has major implications for portability of EJB code.
>
> I would have liked to see 'remote' relationships as well, but at least we
> have a solid starting point from which to move forward in EJB 2.x (3.?).
> __________________________________________________________________
> ______________
>
> Evan Ireland Sybase EAServer Engineering
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Wellington, New Zealand
> +64 4 934-5856
>
> ==================================================================
> =========
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> in the body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
