Even if we are able to support two or more EJB containers, I would never recommend using different ones for development and deployment. That, as you say, is just asking for inconsistencies to cause grief.
But some users may choose to give up the benefits of the dynamics during development for a compiled container - because either they really want/need every nano seconds of latency reduced or because their culture is opposed to dynamics on production machines.
If there are really several diametrically opposed ways of doing EJBs - then it would be great if geronimo could support them all. But then I have little idea of the amount of work required to come up with AbstractEJBContainer.
cheers
Test Account wrote:
Greg,
Absolutely, that was the gist of what I was trying to say, albeit, somewhat poorly. You want the fast dynamic development deployment capabilities while banging out endless refactorings. But when it comes time to deploy in a scalable environment you may need to eek every last drop of performance, so may need the compiled skeletons. It would be great to have both. The problem would be in guaranteeing consistency between the two paths. I wouldn't want to get differing behavior when running in development from when running in production.
Enjoy,
Craig
----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Wilkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Reflection Bad, OO and direct Method invocation Good...
I don't know if this falls into the "too much choice is a bad thing" arena, but would it not be good if we could have both a dynamic jboss inspired EJB container and a compiled EJB container (perhaps from or inspired by the JOnAS folks??).
-- Greg Wilkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462 Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com
-- Greg Wilkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone/fax: +44 7092063462 Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK. http://www.mortbay.com
