> Local interfaces & relationships are a pretty flexible approach. > And they can be a (relatively) lightweight technique of accessing > data. Performance is an importance factor, but not the only > one when building complex applications. Just as important (or > more so!) are other metrics such as modularity, extensibility, > maintainability.
I'm not promoting writing VB style code in java (straight JDBC). But my point is that CMP2 isn't the solution either. That's why there's such a big debate over JDO too. > Value Objects are not a workaround. They've been around (known > by different names) since the days of distributed computing. Well, I agree and disagree :-) Value objects for listing behavior are ok, for the rest no. You should be able to pass on beans directly, and here I don't mean a huge object graph. Just take a look at Apple's Webobjects framework (eodistribution/eocontrol packages). That's the way it should be done. Programmer not directly dealing with value objects but a smart access layer like the above mentioned packages should. > It is possible to build high performant distributed systems > using low level techniques (raw JDBC, or low level native code, > sockets etc), but such systems are typically brittle & difficult > to maintain & extend. The approach with J2EE is to raise the > level of abstraction used; so as to hide that complexity. > (Again, its not sweeping complexity under the carpet - but > rather abstracting that complexity from the developer). I'm all for abstraction. No debate here. Read my first paragraph. > But I've digressed here. The issue at hand is not whether > EJB 2.0 CMP is usable, but rather a discussion (debate ;) of the > recommended techniques & trade offs when accessing them. If you use CMP2 and entity beans and want a more maintainable code then don't use value objects. If it's slow then no question you have to make it faster, so use value objects! Another alternative? Well, I've expressed my other alternative. Of course you can use a code generator like XDoclet to automate value object generation, actively. > -krish Ara. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ara Abrahamian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:31 PM > > To: 'Krishnan Subramanian'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Retrieving data from entity beans > > > > > > You're quite right. I've measured a 6-10X difference. I'm disappointed > > about what EJB2 expert group came up with. The CMP2 stuff ended up being > > very sophisticated, and they don't support dependent objects either. > > Dependent objects in PFD2 were a better approach. Can someone here > > enlighten us why they've chosen this approach? > > > > Based on all these performance/etc issues I still prefer to go the > > session facade->javabean path, no use of workarounds such as value > > objects or heavy beans/relations. > > > > Ara. > > ======================================================================== == > = > 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".
