> |Using local interfaces from web would be stupid I agree.
>
> I am not sure that is true, nor what he says.
>
> In fact we already use "local" stuff in the optimized version. I guess it
> wouldn't be portable that's all and would limit your deployment
> option. But
> since we automate that already in the current base it is kind of a moot
> point. All the spec has bought us in this case is "portability" but the
> feature is the same :( -> mucho code and little gain
Yes, that's what I thought before beginning my big surgery, and it verifies
now : little/no gain after migrating a lot to local interfaces.
Anyway it makes things _clearer_ with session bean facade and (cmp 1.1) cmp
relationships.
Sorry but I disagree (with you-agree with Dan) on the web part, when
portability comes in priority before performance, when I want to be able to
have a web tier separate from the ejb tier.
Even if JBoss handle everything in one VM, I can not make assumption on how
the deployment will be made.
I hope you will agree that saying "performance ==> deployment ==>
portability" is not always a good message. "portability ==> deployment ==>
performance" can be an option too.
> marcf
Vincent
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
