RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

Hi Tim! This is good news indeed: someone took the time to actually read a message and respond to it, instead of sending 100's of nonsensical one-liners ;) Answer inline. > -Mensaje original- > De: Tim Hyde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Hi Alex, > > You ask why I think it's important t

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

'Jakarta General List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 31 January 2002 12:49 Subject: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > Hi Tim. > > I agree with your point of view, we've been trying to avoid EJBs as much as > possible. But there's one thing I don't understa

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

I agree Jeff; though for such a smart container to work in an elegant way I'd prefer to develop the beans in a non-distributed manner and the smart container do the rest - distributing what it thinks makes sense - along the EOB / AltRMI lines. Not code to a server side componet API like EJB. Thou

Re: J2EE considered harmful

Hey Jeff - Original Message - From: "Jeff Schnitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > (*) One thing I've noticed with SOAP is that developers from the different > camps (web/MOM, CORBA/EJB) seem to see SOAP as different things. The > web/MOM > guys

RE: [ot] J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 19:44, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 09:19, Alef Arendsen wrote: > > > So what's the score? DotNet is the new Microsoft initiative, and - > as > > always - they've perfectly imitated J2EE and have ha

RE: [ot] J2EE considered harmful

> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 09:19, Alef Arendsen wrote: > > So what's the score? DotNet is the new Microsoft initiative, and - as > always - they've perfectly imitated J2EE and have had a good look at all > J2EE's pitfalls. USed J2EE as a basis an

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

> From: Steve Downey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Most objects don't work if they are made distributed without careful > consideration. I wonder if that has to be the case. Right now, our distributed object containers are blissfully stupid. We (humans) can point at any individual class or in

RE: J2EE considered harmful

> From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > (*) One thing I've noticed with SOAP is that developers from the different > camps (web/MOM, CORBA/EJB) seem to see SOAP as different things. The > web/MOM > guys tend to think of SOAP as a universal message format so the same > structured mes

Re: Re: J2EE considered harmful

From: "acoliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:35:55 - "James Strachan" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote. > >> JMS is not > >> appropriate for a number of areas. > > > >Like what? > > > > UI, guaranteed failure situations. I don't follow. JMS/MOM is one of the only solutions where c

Re: J2EE considered harmful

- Original Message - From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No EJBs suck. I'm arguing we need something better. I think you're > thinking distributed systems as a whole are bad and perhaps we've worked > in different problem areas so we've reached differing opinions on this. > Di

Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvscommit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

I agree quite a lot with Andrew. In fact, I agree enough that I stopped using EJBs around the middle of last year because they are SUCH a pain to build and maintain, and because the performance sucks and there's nothing you can do about it, even if you pay the high premiums for "advanced" appl

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

On 2/1/02 8:57 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps the question to ask is how are real sites providing real > scalabilty without resorting to Enterprise JavaBeans? > > Take google.com and yahoo.com for example, > > Yahoo offers a signficant number of remote, multi-user applica

Re: Re: J2EE considered harmful

>On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:35:55 - "James Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote. >From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > #1 you don't need to use EJBs to distribute business logic If you do >need to >> > distribute business logic, then there are various alternatives open, >from >> > HTTP/

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Alef Arendsen wrote: > As far as I can remember Google has started out in a small shed using > just personal computers. No big mainframes, serverfarms or whatever. > Just a proprietary server platform. > > What the status is right now, I don't now... They still use PCs. Thou

Re: J2EE considered harmful

From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > #1 you don't need to use EJBs to distribute business logic If you do need to > > distribute business logic, then there are various alternatives open, from > > HTTP/Servlets, JMS, SOAP or EJB. Each should be evaluated on their merits, > > cost/benefi

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

A 10,000 node linux cluster. http://www.google.com/press/highlights.html > -Original Message- > From: Alef Arendsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:58 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > &g

RE: J2EE considered harmful

Well, if you are considering building a new language that is based on a primordial focus on distributed programming, consider me in. I would be happy to toil in that vineyard. I think this is a grand idea. The key is to come up with a nifty idea to make that "primordial focus" work. My th

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

y are made distributed without careful consideration. > -Original Message- > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:19 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > So what if you need to

AltRMI chat (was: [OT] J2EE considered harmful)

ubject: Re: [OT] J2EE considered harmful > > > Paulo, > > >Paul just answered to what I meant in a better way than I would be able > >to do. > > > >BTW Paul, you know JAspect and Dynamic Proxies don't you? > > > > Yes, BUT : I am not skilled en

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

(too bad I'll be boycotting Yahoo soon because they use pop-up ads which I consider SOoo unprofessional) On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 11:00, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 11:07, Ted Husted wrote: > > "Andrew C. Oliver" wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 10:46, Ted Husted wrote:

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 11:07, Ted Husted wrote: > "Andrew C. Oliver" wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 10:46, Ted Husted wrote: > > > yahoo.com goes way beyond a search engine: > > > > > > Email, address books, auctions, classified ads, file storage, calendars > > > and shared calendars, person

Re: J2EE considered harmful

They may indeed be. I think the arguments drifted to methodology (as far as whether distributed object technologies are even necessary which was moot). I'd really like to help with a case studies page. Some end-end Apache and Jakarta solutions. We should be a bit more "project agnostic" on thi

Re: J2EE considered harmful

Obviously, I meant to say Apache is member of the J2SE group at Sun ... Ted Husted wrote: > > You know, since Apache is a member of the J2SE group at Apache, it would > make a lot of sense for us to develop a resource page regarding J2SE > scalability. > > I'd be very happy to start and maintai

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

"Andrew C. Oliver" wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 10:46, Ted Husted wrote: > > yahoo.com goes way beyond a search engine: > > > > Email, address books, auctions, classified ads, file storage, calendars > > and shared calendars, personalized portals for like 27 different sub > > applications, th

Re: J2EE considered harmful

You know, since Apache is a member of the J2SE group at Apache, it would make a lot of sense for us to develop a resource page regarding J2SE scalability. I'd be very happy to start and maintain such a page here, as I do for Struts. http://husted.com/struts/resources.htm If anyone has some st

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, 01 February 2002 16:46 > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > yahoo.com goes way beyond a search engine: > > Email, address books, auctions, classified ads, file storage, > calendars > and s

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 10:46, Ted Husted wrote: > yahoo.com goes way beyond a search engine: > > Email, address books, auctions, classified ads, file storage, calendars > and shared calendars, personalized portals for like 27 different sub > applications, the list goes on. > > Yahoo is delivering

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

yahoo.com goes way beyond a search engine: Email, address books, auctions, classified ads, file storage, calendars and shared calendars, personalized portals for like 27 different sub applications, the list goes on. Yahoo is delivering a vast number of dynamic applications to an incredible numbe

RE: J2EE considered harmful

Hi Jeff, > -Mensaje original- > De: Jeff Schnitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] > I've been giving a lot of thought to distributed object models lately. > I've worked with DCOM, CORBA, RMI, and EJB, and for the most > part it's a > lot of the same. Since networks are getting so fa

RE: [ot] J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 09:19, Alef Arendsen wrote: > I used to see J2EE and EJBs as the perfect solution to build scalable, maintainable >webapplications. Our companies has been moving away from the webapplications business >and we're completely focussing on delivering knowledge management compon

Re: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

Paulo, >Paul just answered to what I meant in a better way than I would be able >to do. > >BTW Paul, you know JAspect and Dynamic Proxies don't you? > Yes, BUT : I am not skilled enough in Jaspect, AspectJ, BCEL, JCFE to able able to use them for AltRMI's proxy generation. I know *exactly* wh

RE: J2EE considered harmful

> I'm more into a scalable version of the RUP. In my opinion > XP is a hack > of a methodology (the RUP actually covers most of its > issues). XP also > suffers from the misconception that programming is the most important > activity in software development (I would argue requirements gathe

Re: J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 08:53, James Strachan wrote: > Hey Andrew > > Insteresting thread ;-) > Thanks! you too. > Agreed. Though I've 2 points to make. > > #1 you don't need to use EJBs to distribute business logic If you do need to > distribute business logic, then there are various altern

RE: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

o el: viernes 1 de febrero de 2002 14:20 > Para: Jakarta General List > Asunto: RE: [OT] J2EE considered harmful > > > Paul just answered to what I meant in a better way than I > would be able > to do. > > BTW Paul, you know JAspect and Dynamic Proxies don't you? >

RE: [ot] J2EE considered harmful

I used to see J2EE and EJBs as the perfect solution to build scalable, maintainable webapplications. Our companies has been moving away from the webapplications business and we're completely focussing on delivering knowledge management components (including some integration stuff). The initial

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

Those are both search engines with non-critical data update issues. You do need an example with more business-logic oriented type functionality. I could mock something like those up with Lucene just with a few routers and pushing the indicies to the mirrored systems. This doesn't answer the "en

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

drew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:19 PM > > To: Jakarta General List > > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > > > So what if you need to move an object that is defined as local to be > > load balance

Re: J2EE considered harmful

Hey Andrew Insteresting thread ;-) - Original Message - From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 04:14, James Strachan wrote: > > Hi Jeff > > > > I share your oppinions on EJB. Whenever I ask developers why they are using > > EJB the common answer I get from p

Re: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

Perhaps the question to ask is how are real sites providing real scalabilty without resorting to Enterprise JavaBeans? Take google.com and yahoo.com for example, Yahoo offers a signficant number of remote, multi-user applications like the ones we would like to provide to our own clients. Are th

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

... Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -Original Message- > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:19 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > So what if you need to move an object tha

RE: J2EE considered harmful

n away. > +1 > > > Have fun, > Paulo Gaspar > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jeff Schnitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:54 PM > > To: Jakarta General List > > Subject: RE: J2EE cons

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

lo > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:03 AM > > To: Jakarta General List > > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > > > Albeit at the expens

RE: J2EE considered harmful

> of the Sun/Microsoft duopoly. (Yeah, yeah, there will always be people > who enjoy working on nonvirtual machines, but they're crazy :-) I'm not completely sure I followed this. I was cool up until the above line. Are you suggesting just a replacement for J2EE or Java itself. I'm fairly sat

RE: J2EE considered harmful

On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 16:54, Jeff Schnitzer wrote: > > From: Micael Padraig Og mac Grene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Are you just talking about creating a new language, or what? What is > your > > idea? I cannot tell. > > That's a good question, and ultimately one which would be determi

Re: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 06:44, Paul Hammant wrote: > Alex, > > My experience is that people either immediately decide they like AltRMI > or strongly dislike it. One of my strongest critics (in commons mail > list) is coming round to it after much effort :-) > > For many it is inline with someth

RE: J2EE considered harmful

L PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:54 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > From: Micael Padraig Og mac Grene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Are you just talking about creating a new language, or wh

Re: J2EE considered harmful

ld be cool. > +1 > FWIW you might want to keep an eye on the AltRMI project at Jakarta Commons > which hopes to make RMI and the Remote stuff much easier. > > James > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Schnitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "J

RE: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

> To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: [OT] J2EE considered harmful > > > Alex, > > My experience is that people either immediately decide they like AltRMI > or strongly dislike it. One of my strongest critics (in commons mail > list) is coming round to it

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

1, 2002 7:03 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > Albeit at the expense of scalability > > On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 09:51, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > I think that the key bit is: > > > and it is a mistake to try to progr

Re: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

Alex, My experience is that people either immediately decide they like AltRMI or strongly dislike it. One of my strongest critics (in commons mail list) is coming round to it after much effort :-) For many it is inline with something they have felt for ages : Remote interface and RemoteExcep

RE: [OT] J2EE considered harmful

ndro > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:50 PM > > To: 'Jakarta General List' > > Subject: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > > > Hi Tim. > > > > I agree with your point of view, we'v

RE: J2EE considered harmful

> From: Micael Padraig Og mac Grene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Are you just talking about creating a new language, or what? What is your > idea? I cannot tell. That's a good question, and ultimately one which would be determined by the constraints of the technology. Prototyping would prob

Re: J2EE considered harmful

- Original Message - From: "Jeff Schnitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:38 PM Subject: RE: J2EE considered harmful Amusingly enough, I've been considering writing an article with t

RE: J2EE considered harmful

Are you just talking about creating a new language, or what? What is your idea? I cannot tell. At 12:38 PM 1/31/02 -0800, you wrote: >Amusingly enough, I've been considering writing an article with this >exact same title. I've implemented two medium-sized systems using EJBs >(http://www.simil

RE: J2EE considered harmful

Amusingly enough, I've been considering writing an article with this exact same title. I've implemented two medium-sized systems using EJBs (http://www.similarity.com and http://mav.sourceforge.net/pig) and I've been haunting the ejb-interest list for more than a year. I was never ecstatic about

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

e more robust if you do NOT ignore the > specific issues of a remote call. > > > Have fun, > Paulo Gaspar > > > -Original Message- > > From: Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:50 PM

Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

Tim, BRAVO. Daniel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

RE: J2EE considered harmful

A bit more of OT inline: =;o) > -Original Message- > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:50 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > At 09:11 PM 1/31/2002 +0100, Paulo Gaspar w

RE: J2EE considered harmful

At 09:11 PM 1/31/2002 +0100, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > (1) Not using that kind of layer does NOT mean that you have to > concatenate Strings; Yes, am pretty sure there are ways to make life easier with SQL, sorry for bad comparison. See, despite all of the skepticism about O/R mechanisms, I b

RE: J2EE considered harmful

ut the DynaBeans stuff. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -Original Message- > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: J2EE considered harmful > > ... > > Well, if EJB (or other

RE: J2EE considered harmful

At 12:36 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, Steve Downey wrote: >EJB also brings to the table all of the problems of the Object/Relational >impedance mismatch. It's an empirical fact at this point that rows in a >table are bad objects. They're data, and have no behavior. Turning them into >objects with container

RE: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

> I have implemented a system using Container Managed EntityBeans that > worked fairly well. I used Jonas (it was some time ago). It > was smaller > than the original poster example (about 20 entity classes, tens of > thousands of instances). I spent a lot of time getting the > entity desi

RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

inal Message- > From: Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:50 PM > To: 'Jakarta General List' > Subject: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > Hi Tim. > > I agree with your point of view, we'v

Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvscommit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 08:37, Santiago Gala wrote: > Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > >To be fair, WebSphere is probably more troublesome then the other > >containers (at least thats been my experience with it). I do think > >there is a time and place for RPC. I however think better support for > >l

Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

Andrew C. Oliver wrote: >To be fair, WebSphere is probably more troublesome then the other >containers (at least thats been my experience with it). I do think >there is a time and place for RPC. I however think better support for >location independence is required. > (snip) > >I would sugges

[OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful

Hi Tim. I agree with your point of view, we've been trying to avoid EJBs as much as possible. But there's one thing I don't understand. > -Mensaje original- > De: Tim Hyde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Yes, EJB is a complete bodge of a design, and RPC invocation > techniques > would only

Re: J2EE considered harmful (was [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

I've been lurking on this list for several years, and not speaking about things I'm not contributing to. But Andy's comment here about EJB & J2EE goes right to the point, and triggers my passion ... As an architect, I've been in 5 projects in the last 2.5 years where EJBs were on the table, and