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] 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

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: 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] 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: 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] 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: 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