On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:50:25 -0400 Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2-Sep-05, at 3:38 PM, Mark Wong wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > Oops, EJB's are distasteful? My experience in this area is quite > > lacking. > Well, I said "personally" distasteful. > > Not that I necessarily want to be 100% strict but the spec > > says this needs to conform to WS-I BP 1.0 specification, which I > > understand is basically using the SOAP transport? I just thought it > > would be nice to have something that could be plugged into any > > application server (Geronimo, JBoss, etc.) with minimal configuration > > changes and that was where I started. I don't mind doing away with > > the > > EJB altogether. What do you suggest? > > I use hibernate, which would allow this to be used without an > application server. > However strictly speaking, many people are going to want to see EJB's > as this is > what the appserver types like to use. > > > > To give you a little better idea of where I'm at, I have most of 7 > > of 9 > > interactions implemented, the remaining two I haven't started. The > > driver needs to be expanded to simulate multiple users. I haven't > > started any of the post processing or data collection scripts yet and > > some of that can be used from our other kits. My Java programming > > style > > should probably be reviewed too. ;) > > I had a very (very) quick look at your code, one suggestion would be > log4j, (or other configurable logging API ) for your debugging > statements. Ok, I'll have to learn how to do that. :) > If I have some time, I'll look at it some more, I've come to like > using the spring framework. This allows something referred to as IOC > (Inversion of Control) Basically, the problem is how to stub test > code in when we have static factory objects, the solution is to build > the application using a container which specifies the concrete > classes which are instantiated. This would in theory allow us to have > tow versions. One which uses hibernate, and the other which uses > EJB's. So one thing to think about is to code in interfaces more, and > instantiate concrete classes which implement the interface. That sounds like a very good idea. I'll probably need some coaching though... Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org