Hi Sean,
> This is left as an exercise for the app. server vendor. JOnAS does
> not provide any sort of load balancing on a single named bean (in your
> example having accounting beans on multiple machines with the client
> using the machine with the lowest load) but many commercial EJB vendors
> (BEA WebLogic, IBM WebSphere, etc.) do provide this capability.
I see.
> > I think one of the 'virtues' of OO is your Domain Model, Design Model
> > and Implementation Model can be very similar to each other. But now,
> > when you map your Design Model to Implementation Model in EJB, EJB
> > imposes you this "no fine grain objects and methods" constraint...
>
> No, this is not correct. The situation is EXACTLY the same as your situation
> is in your MSF framework. The client to server method call needs to be
> large grained. But once you are in the server method (be it a session bean
> or entity bean) you can employ your naturally fine grained object model.
> You don't make fine grained method calls on your MSF workspace from your
> client now, right? Just use the same model with your beans and you won't
> have any problems.
>
So, I shouldn't model fine-grained business objects as entity beans...
If that's the case, my fine-grained business objects are not (EJB) components.
(In MSF, even fine-grained business objects are MSF components. They have to
obey the interface contract.) Then, services like CMP are not available to my
fine-grained business objects. I have to implement my own persistence framework
for my business objects if I don't want DB code entangled in my business logic.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the EJB architecture and entity beans?
--
John
----
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "unsubscribe jonas-users".
For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "help".
