A lot of bugs were present in Orion 2.0.0(noticeably some deadlocks Orion invented). Most have dissapeared in Orion 2.0.2 (in fact I've seen no bugs yet). For a number of reasons you already know been an Orion long-time user, and the experience you already have, I'd say stick with Orion. EQL is fully supported. BTW, I keep most Orion versions back to 0.93, so if you need one in particular let me know (I've got 1.6.0 which is the steadiest without fully complaint EJB 2.0 support). The only thing that comes with Orion that's nasty is HSQL. Try to use the one bundled with Orion 1.5.3 if you rely on it.
I'm currently developing a massive engine with Orion and I've got it running against SQL Server, Oracle and MySQL, and Orion truly is a silver-bullet. HTH, Juan Pablo Lorandi Chief Software Architect Code Foundry Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Barberstown, Straffan, Co. Kildare, Ireland. Tel: +353-1-6012050 Fax: +353-1-6012051 Mobile: +353-86-2157900 www.codefoundry.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Paransky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:20 PM > To: Juan Pablo Lorandi > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Thoughts on Orion 2.0.x? > > > Hi, > > Juan, it's good to hear from you again. It's also good to > hear that you > are still using Orion. I am still running on an old version of Orion > (1.5.3), and thinking about starting a project to convert to > the latest > 2.0.x version. Do you have any opinion on if I should bother staying > with Orion or moving to JBoss? The last time I tried > converting, I ran > into some issues with Local interfaces (that was a while back). Are > there any nasty bugs running around the latest version of Orion? The > current version I am using, works fine for everything I am > doing, but I > would like to get "standard" EJB 2.0 support and start using EJBQL. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Thanks. > > -- > -AP_ > http://www.myprofiles.com/member/profile/apara_personal > http://www.myprofiles.com/member/profile/apara_business > > > Juan Pablo Lorandi wrote: > > >>Hi , > >> > >>Can anyone suggest on the debate going on, that EJB is an overhead > >>since its actual features are rarely used and for the > purpose which we > >>use EJB,we can always use some other things also.Your > opinion on this. > >> > >> > >> > > > >That debate isn't going on anymore :-). > > > >Using EJBs depends on the purpose. If you have to code stuff that > >solves problems that the EJB container solves for you if you > use EJBs, > >then you're reinventing the wheel. If you get sick and need to be > >replaced, instead of calling in a guy with EJB skills, you'll need a > >guy that is familiar with your kind-of-EJB code. Best of > luck finding > >them. > > > >The debate isn't going on anymore because EJBs will never "improve > >performance" per se. Assembler and C++ will improve performance. > >Usually, what you care about is scalability, and while > performance has > >a close relationship to scalability, under a number of situations > >improved performance might have a negative impact on scalability or > >zero impact. It doesn't boil down to performance, but to TCO. With > >EJBs, performance overhead is minor, and scalability doesn't involve > >coding... It's more of an administrative matter. Buy a new box, jack > >in, configure the load balancer. You've scaled. You've got > code that's > >simpler to maintain. You can port your application to a > different app > >server with only so much effort, in case your support has > run out, or > >parts of your deployed application have reached "EOL". > > > >Nowadays I use EJBs for almost anything that needs to call a DB, not > >because of performance, but because of speed of development > and ease of > >use. I code with IntelliJ IDEA, and the app server usually is Orion. > >Under these, coding an CMP-EJB bean is faster than coding > direct JDBC. > >I'd only revert to JDBC if very specific performance > optimizations are > >needed. Of course, if I was to use, say, Websphere, I'd be > stuck with > >writing DAO's. This isn't Sun's fault, but IBM's. That said, > the J2EE > >compliance test suite should make them NOT to endorse > Websphere. Orion > >makes it really easy in practice to have DB-transparency, so I guess > >that different deployment scenarios may make EJBs more or less > >desirable. > > > >There's a lot about EJBs that I'd like to be changed. But the bottom > >line is: it's very existence makes MY life easier. If you want > >performance, drop Java altogether and learn some Assembler. Best of > >luck going about it. > > > > > >My 2c, > > > >Juan Pablo Lorandi > >Chief Software Architect > >Code Foundry Ltd. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Barberstown, Straffan, Co. Kildare, Ireland. > >Tel: +353-1-6012050 Fax: +353-1-6012051 > >Mobile: +353-86-2157900 > >www.codefoundry.com > > > >============================================================= > ========== > >==== > >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".
